DEPUTY SHANKAR RASTOGI Vs. PRINCIPAL S M COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by a student who was not promoted by the Principal of his college and then filed, a suit to compel the college to promote him. The facts are these. The plaintiff:, Deputy Shanker Rastogi, was in 1947 a student of the S.M. College, Chandausi in the Bachelor of Commerce, first year, class. He appeared in the first terminal examination and stood third in his class. He failed to appear in the annual examination and produced a medical certificate proving his inability to sit in the examination. Thirty five other students, like him, did not sit because of illness. All of them, with one exception, were asked to appear at a supplementary examination. An exception was made in favour of a student suffering from tuberculosis on humanitarian grounds and also because he was considered "a very brilliant student''. He was promoted into fourth year class without being asked to take the supplementary examination.

(2.) All the students who were called upon to sit in the supplementary examination complied with the Principal's direction, but not the plaintiff. He insisted on being promoted without being required to take a supplementary test. On the refusal of the college to promote him, he filed the present suit. In his plaint he made serious allegations against the Principal and accused him of malicious motives, arbitrary conduct and discrimination. The plaintiff alleged that he had been singled out by the Principal for taking a supplementary examination during the summer vacation whereas another student was granted promotion on medical grounds. He also claimed that he was entitled under the existing rules of the college to be promoted on the basis of the result of the last terminal examination. The plaintiff asked the Court to declare that he was a Fourth Year student of the Bachelor of Commerce class of the S. M. College, Chandausi and also prayed for an injunction restraining the Principal and the College, from interfering with in rights as a student to prosecute his studies in that class. The suit was resisted by the college which contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action whatsoever. According ft the defendants, the promotion of a student did not follow automatically from the result of the terminal examination. It was pointed out in the written statement that the plaintiff had not been declared failed but was merely asked to appear at a supplementary examination in July 1947, and as he had not presented himself for this examination he had forfeited the right to be promoted. The college offered to take him in the Third Year class if he was inclined to join it.

(3.) The college denied that there had been any discrimination against the plaintiff or in favour of any other student, It was admitted that one student who had not appeared in the annual examination on medical grounds was promoted to the Fourth Year class without being asked to take a supplementary test, but it was explained that this. student was "very brilliant" and as he was suffering from tuberculosis the exemption was made in his favour by the Principal on humanitarian grounds as the shock of failure might have caused a set-back in his case. All the other students who did not appear in the second terminal (the annual) examination on medical grounds were asked to take a supplementary test in July 1947.