SUBIR KUMAR SAHA Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point for determination in this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is whether petitioner has been discriminated against in the matter of being allowed to continue to prosecute his studies in the famed Indian Institute of Technology at Powai, Bombay.

(2.) For answering the point formulated above, the following is the backdrop :- Petitioner belongs to a Section recognised as a Scheduled Caste. This Section is granted and rightly so, facilities in the matter of admission and appraisal of academic performance. Petitioner appeared for an entrance examination to join the I.I.T., and having succeeded in the said examination, was enrolled in the year 1977. The pattern followed for imparting education and assessing the performance is the semester system. Petitioner continued up to 1979-80 having done six semesters. A consistently bad record compelled the respondent to call upon the petitioner to leave. This he did. But in 1980 or 1981, he again appeared at an entrance examination and stood 16th in order of merit amongst the Scheduled Caste candidates. Petitioner got admission and somehow went through till the fourth semester. Thereafter, his grades started slipping. On 29-6-1984, the Institute addressed an admonitory letter to the petitioner's father vide Ex. J. informing him that his son and ward had not earned any credits at the end of the spring semester of 1983-84 as against the expected 28 prescribed for Scheduled Caste candidates under the rules. A request was made to the father to warn his son to show improvement. Petitioner did not register for the spring semester of 1984-85 and had not given any intimation to the Academic Council as to why he had omitted to do so. Thereupon, under Ex. N petitioner was called upon to give an explanation for the failure to register and/or explain the reason for non-registration. In reply to this communication, petitioner gave out that he was suffering from neurosis. The explanation was accepted and petitioner permitted to withdraw from the spring semester on medical grounds. But the autumn semester performance of the petitioner showed no improvement, and therefore, on Jan. 3, 1986, under Ex. Q, the Institute asked him to show cause why he should not be made to leave the Institute consequent to his failure to pass at two consecutive semesters. On 6-1-1986, petitioner gave an explanation and the following excerpt therefrom has some bearing on the merits of the case. He said, the reason was -

(3.) Petitioner contends that at the time he was admitted to the Institute, the 1981-1982 Rules were in force. The third clause of the relevant Rule was worded -