RAMAKRISHNA Vs. CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURALSCIENCES BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a V Semester Post-graduate Student undergoing a Masters course in Agriculture Engineering. He is aggrieved of a memo dated the 9th September, 1996 issued by the Registrar, of the respondent-University, whereby his admission has been cancelled in terms of Regulation 12. 1. 4 of the Regulations governing Post-graduate programmes on account of his failure to earn the minimum C. G. P. A. of 7 out of 10 at the end of II Semester of 1993-94. The memo reads thus:

(2.) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent, the University has justified its action on the ground set out in the memo. It is urged that as per the said Regulation, post-graduate degree students are required to earn the prescribed over all Grade Point average at the end of II semester and also to maintain the said average throughout failing which their admission is liable to be cancelled forcing them to discontinue the course. It is stated that academic standards of the Courses, offered by the respondents are matters that are decided by academic bodies and that the University having framed the Regulations and prescribed a standard for the course undertaken by the petitioner, his failure to come up to the prescribed standard would disentitle him to continue in the course or seek any relief from this Court.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner argued that while a candidate undergoing the Post-graduate Course, is required to earn a cumulative Grade Point of not less than 7. 00 out of 10. 00 at the end of the II Semester and those who failed to satisfy that requirement are not entitled to continue the course yet in order that a candidate may be asked to leave the course or his admission be cancelled on that ground, it is essential that the other requirements of the Regulations are scrupulously complied with. It was contended that in terms of Regulation 13. 2, the teachers are obliged to send the Grade result of each student to the Academic Unit within two weeks of the commencement of the next semester which in the case of the petitioner does not appear to have been done, with the result that the petitioner was permitted to join the III Semester during the Academic year 1994-95, without any objection from the respondents. Having thus, induced the petitioner to believe that his admission to the iii Semester was perfectly justified, contended the learned counsel, it was not open to the University to cancel the same two years later in September 1996 by which time he had already reached the V Semester. The University, it was argued, was estopped from cancelling the petitioner's admission at this distant point of time, on what was termed as a tenuous plea that the petitioner had not attended the prescribed Grade Point at the end of the II Semester.