JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY v. B. S. NARWAL (2)

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 618

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY

Case summary

a student over a period of time and declare his work to be unsatisfactory we are unable to see how any question of a right to be heard can arise. The High Court by their judgment, dated August 6, 1979 allowed the Writ Petition first~y on the ground that the respondent wa1s...

Judgment text

' JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY v. J. B. S. NARWAL September 4, 1980 [V. R. KRJSHNA lyER AND 0. CmNNAPPA REDDY, JJ. ] University-Student-Unsatisfactory performance in studies--Name removed from University rolls--Opportunity to show cause whether to be given-Doctrine of audi alteram partan-Applicability of. · The appellant University offered integrated 5 years programme of study leading to the award of M. A. degree in several disciplines and languages. The programme was spread over ten semesters in 5 academic years. The courses in the discipline in which a student was formally registered were known as the 'core-courses' while the other courses for which also the student had to prescribe were known as 'tool courses' and 'optional courses'. The respondent was a student of the five year integrated programme of study in the Master of Arts degree in Rnssian Language at the appellant University.

In the first two semesters, he failed to take the sessional test in any of the 'core courses' in Russia11 and consequently he was not allowed to sit for the end semester examinations. He, however, appeared for the examinations in the 'tool courses' and the 'optional courses' in the first two semesters. In the third semeste~ the respondent requested permission of the University to repeat the courses of the first semester so as to enable him to pass them. The University permitted him to do so but he failed in all the five courses in which he was permitted to do so. Dissatisfied with his performance the Centre of Russian Studies recommended to the Board of Studies that the respondent's name bll struck off the rolls and his name was accordingly removed from the rolls.

The High Court, allowed the respondent's writ petition on the ground that : (I) no opportunity to show cause was given to him before his name 'was struck off the rolls, and (2) that the University did not apply its mind to the question whether the respondent's performance was unsatisfactory. In the appeal to this Court on the question : whether the respondent was entitled to an opportunity of being heard, before removing him from the rolls of the University. Allowing the appeal : HELD ~ l. In the absence of allegations of bias or mala fides, the declaration by an academic body that a student's academic performance is unsatisfactory is not liable to be questioned in a Court on the ground that the student was not given an opportunity of being heard. [623 E-F] This is not a case of expulsion pursuant to a claim by the authorities of a University to discipline the student at their discretion and the right of the 'i\WAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY v. B. s. NARWAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.

) 619" -student to freedom and justice. The case is merely one of assessment of the academic performance of a student which the prescribed authorities of the University. are best qualified and the Courts are least qualified to judge. f623 A-BJ . J. . Herring v. Temp/emen & Ors. 1973 (3) All E. R.. 569 & 584; Regina v. Aston University Senata 1969 (2) All E. R. 964 referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3115 of 1979. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order, dated 6-8-1979 of the Delhi H~ Court in Civil Writ No. 395 of 1979. K. K. Venugvpal, H. K. Puri and S. C. Dlg1uda for the Appellant. A. K. Gupta for ·i'he Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CmNNAPPA REDDY, J. The Jawharlal Nehru University, considered to be one of the prestigious academic institutions of the country, is the appellant in this appeal by special leave of this Court; under Article f36 of · the Constitution.

Named after the great liberal, humanist and democrat of the century, thle University was established by Act of Parliament to "embody a unique synthesis of Humanities, the Sciences and Technology" and to "endeavoilr to pi'. Omote the study of principles for which Jawaharlal Nehru worked during his lifetime, namely, natiooal integration, l'locial justice, secularism, demo- . cratic way of life, international understanding and scientific approach to the problems of society". ·~ 'The Court' is the. supreme authority of. the University and it has the power to review the acts of the Executive Council and the Academic Council. The Vice Chancellor is the Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University.

The Execufive Council is the executive body of the University, in charge of the general management and administration of the University while the Academic Council is the academic body of the University, respansible for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination within the University. The Executive Council is empowered to make 'Statutes' in the manner prescribed by the Jawahar! al Nehru University Act and to make 'Ordinances' in the manner prescribed by the Statutes. + · Ordinances have been duly made and Ordinance 13 deals with the award of M. A. , B. A. , (Honours) and B. A. (PaS1s) degrees. The University offers rlltegrated Five-Year Programmes of studie8 leading to the award of M. A~ Degree in several Disciplines and I:,angriage5. Russian is one o~ the languages in which mich a programme of studies is offered. The programme is spread over ten semesters, in five academic years. In the first two semest.

e11S, courses described' as 'C' level courses are given,' in the next four se! llesters 'B' level courses are given and in the last four semeste11s 'A' level course& are given. Each 'C' level course carries two credits, each 'B' level course three credits and each 'A' level course four credits. Paragraph 7. 3 of Ordinance 13 prescribes a minimum of 144 credits in the case of Social Sciences and 176 credits in the case of languages for the Master of Ailts Degree, out of which there have to be a minimum of 20 credits from 'C' level courses, 60 from 'B' level courses and 64 from 'A' level courses in the case of Social Sciences and a minimum of 28 from 'C' level courses, 84 from 'B' level courses and 64 'from 'A' level courses, in the case of languages. It is further prescribed that a minimum of 50% of credits but not more than 75 % should be in the discipline in which the student is formally registered for the Master's degree.

It may be mentioned here that the courses in the discipline in which the IS'tudent is formally registered are known as the 'core courses' while the other courses ·for which also the student has to prescribe are known as 'Tool courses' and 'optional courses'. Paragraph 7. 5 prescribes that the courses on the basis of which a student earns his 'C' level credits shall be atleast from four disciplines. Paragraph 7. 6 provides that a student shall be required to earn atleast ·a minimum of ten credits from courses in Tools, Techniques and Methodology. Paragraph 8 of Ordinan. ce 13 prescribes the method of evaluatix:m. Sessional work is to carry the same weight as the semester exami'· nation.

In each course a student is gtaded on a ten point scale and the final grade point is obtained by applying the formula = Where F is the final grade point of the student C is the credlt 1 of the ith course, G ; ils the grade point secured by the student in the ith course and "J is the total number of courses for which the studeint has prescribed. A student who fails in a course is required to repeat the course or clear another course in lieu of ,G the course in which he has failed. Paragraph 9 of the Ordinance prescribes the minimum standard of gnade point requirements. Every student is required to maintain a minimum cumulative grade poilllt; average of 2. 0 during the first two semesters. At the end of the sixth semester the cumulatiye. grade point average has to be 4. 0 if he ~s to fur'fuer continue in the programme of study.

If he is to be awarded the Master of Arts qegree he must haV secure the required 180 credi'ts by the encl of the academic year 1981 and to make up the deficiency in the credits he has secured so far by taking up the contact hours, sessional tests and semester exami- • · nations of the appropriate semester before the completion of . his 10th semester; (4) tl:)at . the University shall permit the petitioner to join '-1 the appropriate groups· for taking up the required courses and make proper arrangements of sessional tests and semester examinations at reasonable intervals so as not to crowd too many academic requirements at one time". The first question for our consideration is whether the respon· dent was entitled to an opportunity of being heard before action , I 1AWAHARLA~HRU UNIVERSITY v. B. s:. NARWAL (Chitmappa Reddy, J. )1623 w,as taken removfog him from the roll~ of the _Urii\Tersity.

What should be mentioned right at the outset is that this is not a case of expulsion of a studen~ pursuant' to a clainl, by 'th,e authorities' of a University ,to . discipline the student _'at their discretion ·and the right of the student, to _freedom ,and justice. The case is merely nsideration a "wide range of extraneous factors some of 1 which their very nature, for example, personal and family problems might only lJave been known to the students themselves". Therefore, Donaldson J. , observed that in common fairness the students should have been given an opportunity. Even so, Lord Parker C. J. , did not appear to be convinced about the correctness of Donaldson J's view and in Herring v. Templeman & Ors. (]supra), the Court of Appeal expressed the view that Donaldlson . J's opinion required reconsideration on some suitable future occasion. From the earlier narration of facts it would be seen that the .

c respondent had not cleared any of the core coursei; in the first three semesters. If a candidate for the M. A. degree ill a certain discipline fails to clear any single core course in that discipline in . the firnt three semesters, surely, no one can c<>mplain that the academic body which has declared the academic performance of the candidate as unsatisfactory has acted arbitrarily m so declaring. The complai. n. t of the respondent, however, was that he was unable to 1clear the 'core courses' in the first two semesters because the University au1thorities failed to provide teachers to take clas. ses and this was a factor which the authorities ·of the Universi'. ty had failed to consider and the authorities must, therefore, be held not to have applied their minds. · It appears that in the very first semester the respondent joined the University late and missed several classes. The result was that while the rest of the students liad made :,...

_ suffici'ent progress in Russian language the respondent who liad yet to learn the alphabet could not straightaway join the rest of the students attending the core courses. The, therefore, had to attend pther classes in Russian language where Russian language was taught not as a 'core subject' but as a 'tool or optional subject'. According to the respondent there was none to teach Russian language to his grpup between October 6. 1974 and December 6, 1974. ,Again, in the second semester, though there were Russian classes from 10th February to 30th Mardi, 1975, there were no arrangements to teach Russian language to his group after 30th March. The High Court appeared to attach great importance to the faiilure of the Universjty to expressly deny the respondent's aUegation that · there were no teaching facilities between October 6 and December 6, l97~ and again between 10th February and 30th March, 1975. H· True the University did not in express terms deny tlie allega~ioms.

But the Un~versity did mention the following facts in their counter affidavit. In pa11agraph 5 it was said. " · .. : fAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY v. B. s. NARWAL. (Chinnappa Reddy, :J. ) 625 "He joined the first semester on 22nd of August 1974 ,'A although it started from 9th August 1974. So much so he was to be grouped together with, students who had offered Russian as a non-core subject and for whom the Russian classes happened to be sta! 'ting from 1st September. Again,· from 8th October 1975 to 20th December 1975, he was not. regular in attendance. How could the respondent University afford a special curriculum :. for the sake of a particular student who does not avail of the regular course of teaching provided by the Univerisity ·to ·a class of students? It was no fault of the University if the petitioner could not attend the classes when they were conducted, -and the petitioner should be blamed for his irregular attendance".

Again in paragraph 9 it was said : "In reply to paragraph 9, I say that the petitioner did not . join the course on 9th August 1974 when the classes for Russian as a core subject commenced. When the Petitioner came on 22nd August 1974 to join the course, the students who had offered Russian as a core subject and start~d their classes on 9th August, had made substantial progress. The Petitioner: being a beginner in Russian language, could not be accommodated in any of those groups. He had, therefore, to be grouped together wi. th students who had offered Russian classes happened to be starting from September 1. " These statements show that the University did run the neces- -sary classes for the 'core courses' but the Respondent was unable to take advantage of them on account of his insufficient knowledge of Russian, for which reason he had to attend classes for 'optional' courses instead of cfasses for core courses.

The University naturally -could not run a special programme for an individual student. These sflatements went unnoticed by the High Court. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the High Court that the authorities ·of the University were oblivious of the circumstance that the University itself . had failed to provide teaching facilitiies in Russian and the! 'efore. must be considered not to have applied their minds is without factual foundation. We ·have, therefore, no option but to allow the appeal and dismiss the Writ Petition filed by tjle Respondent. We may add that we would not, in any case, have confirmed the directions given by the High Court, as they appear to involve a virtual re-writing <lf . the Ordinances of the University. While allowing the appeal, ·. A . we leave it to the University, to consider if the career of the respondent cannot be salvaged by admitting him into some appropriate semester in accordance with the c)rdinances, if he chooses to submit ,.

l an lljpplication fur admission. There will be no order regarding · co~ts. . B Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1926 of 1980 is dismissed. N. V. K. Appeal allowed I •·. . '