ANIL JINDAL Vs. THAPAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined Two Years (4 Semesters) M.E. Programme in Mechanical Branch, CAD/CAM & Robotics Course in the academic session 2009 -10 in the respondent -University. In terms of Regulation 1.2 of the University Regulations, a student is required to obtain a minimum CGPA of 4.50 for UG & MCA and 5.50 for ME/M.Tech./M.Sc/M.Phil. programmes to make him eligible for award of the degree. According to the petitioner, he did not score 5.50 CGPA and was allowed to improve his score in two subjects, namely, Computer Control of Machine Tools -PCD -101 and Statistical Methods & Algorithms -PCL -105, in which he obtained Grade 'D' in the first attempt. He was allowed to attend summer semester regular classes in the aforesaid two subjects on payment of fee. His application dated 26.05.2011 for admission to the summer semester was allowed with the endorsement "may be allowed please as the candidate is having CGPA 5.50". The petitioner attended regular classes from 01.06.2011 to 15.07.2011 and after completing his studies in the summer semester, took examination of the aforesaid two subjects and earned Grades 'A' & 'B' respectively improving his score from Grade 'D'. Thereafter, he made representation to the University to reflect his Grade in the final result and on the information sought by his father under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was disclosed by the University that the norms of the University provides opportunity only to such students to improve their CGPA who are unable to attain minimum CGPA, but the petitioner was permitted to improve his CGPA on the representation of wrong CGPA as he has mentioned in his application that his CGPA is 5.17 after passing 3rd Semester which would become 5.39 after passing re -appear exam, whereas he had secured 5.70 CGPA and was ineligible for improvement and eligible for grant of M.E. Degree without any improvement, therefore, the two courses taken by him for improvement were not taken into consideration. The University thereafter issued certificate to the petitioner stating that the CGPA having been secured by the petitioner is 5.70. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in the application dated 26.05.2011 in which he has alleged that his CGPA was 5.17 which became 5.39 after passing his re -appear in subject CAD (PCD -202) with the allotment of 'B' Grade in that subject after final evaluation which does not make him eligible to get his M.E. Degree and the said application was duly verified by the Dean of Academic Affairs (DOAA), who granted him permission to attend the summer semester and accordingly the petitioner improved his score by taking examination. It is further submitted that after having passed 2 subjects with 'A' & 'B' Grade, the CGPA of the petitioner has increased to more than 6 points which will make him eligible to seek admission in the Ph.D. programme in view of Clause 7.1 of the Eligibility (Prospectus: p. 16). It is, thus, submitted that denial of showing the improvement in the result in his Degree is going to adversely affect the future prospectus of the petitioner and has prayed for a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with Regulation 15.6 of the University Regulations which provides that "when a student repeats a course the new grade will replace the earlier one in the calculation of the SGPA and CGPA".

(2.) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondent -University has submitted that in the Two Years (4 Semesters) M.E. Programme starting from December 2009 to July 2011, the petitioner appeared in all of his semesters and earned the following grades and CGPA: -

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has not disputed that when the application was filed on 26.05.2011 seeking permission to join the summer semester course for the purpose of taking improvement examination of the two subjects, the petitioner was not having the CGPA of 5.39 but had obtained CGPA 5.70 as by that time he had cleared his backlog exams in which he had failed but still it is submitted that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved as it is neither a case of suggestio falsi or suppressio veri. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, : AIR 1976 SCT 376 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Giyarshi v. Kurukshetra University and others,, 2010(3) SCT 456.