SHAMARAO JAHAGIRDAR Vs. UNIVEHSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES HEBBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard petitioners' learned Advocate and the learned Advocate who represents the University. On behalf of the respondents, arequest has been conveyed that some further time be granted toplace on record a formal reply. Had there been any need, I wouldhave certainly granted the request of the learned Advocate.However, the petitions involve only one clear cut point of lawwhich to my mind does not require any factual reply. Thelearned Advocates have made their submissions with regard tothe merits of the matter.

(2.) The issue in dispute is that the petitioners were students of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore doing their M.Sc. (Agrl.) Degree and they completed the same in the year1994-95. They have set out a detailed narration of theiracademic careers and their professional achievements and I findfrom this that these were all top of the grade students. Accordingto them, having regard to the grades obtained by them also theircareer record that they would have been qualified for the awardof gold medals because the existing regulations prescribe thatthey have to get an overall grade of 8.5 out of 10 for this purpose.It is relevant for me to point out that it is not only theassessment of the final examination but that the examinationincludes practicals etc., held in the earlier course of study whichalso contributes to the overall assessment. According to thepetitioners, the University in or about August, 1994 had changedthe criteria by increasing it to 9,50. It is their case that theywere unaware of the change and that only when the ConvocationProgramme was announced that they were excluded from thelist of gold medal awardees. Hence they have moved this Court.This position is denied on behalf of the University and it hascontended that the students were well aware of the change.

(3.) Petitioners' learned Advocate has submitted that in comparison with the regulations framed by other Universitieswhich are still adopting the 8.5 criteria, that the target of 9.5 isunreasonably high and that therefore, the regulation should bestruck down. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of theUniversity submitted that the Academic Council of theUniversity is well within its authority to raise the qualifyingstandards for gold medals in appropriate subjects to the levelswhich it considers necessary and that therefore, the regulation isperfectly reasonable. To my mind, it would not be appropriate forthis Court to interfere with the decision of the University insofaras one has to take note of the fact that the UniversityAuthorities who take these decisions are highly qualified andexperienced educationists and it is presumed that they are fullyaware of the necessity of altering the qualifying standards insome subjects. To that extent therefore, I do not propose tointerfere with the change that has been effected.