Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B. S. Narwal

Judgment

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, democratic 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, : ~ J 62 0 [1981] l S.C.R_ 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 17 6 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 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 1 is the credlt of the ith course, 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. student who fails in a course is required to repeat the course or clear another course in lieu of 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<: a minimum cumulative grade point ayerage of .4.0.. . Paragraph 11 of tho JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY, v. 'B, s.

NARWAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 621 Ordinance is important for the purposes of .this case and it may be A, ·· extracted here. As it stood at the relevant time, 'it was as follows: "The Board of the School, on the recommendation of the Centre, may remove the name of a student from the course on , the brusis of unsatisfactory academic performance". The respondent B. S. Narwal was admitted, in 1974, to the five year integrated programme af study leading to Master of Arts Degree in Russian Language at the Centre of · Russian Studies in the Jawaharlal Nehru University. As he was seeking a degree in Russian Language, the 'core courses' had necessarily to be those concerned with ·Russian language, literature and translation. In the first two semesters, he failed to take the sessional tests in any of the 'core courses' in Russian and consequently he was not allowed to sit for the end semester examinations. He thus failed to clear any of the 'core courses' in the first two semesters.

He, however, appeared for the examinations in the 'tool' and the 'optional courses' in the first two semesters and prescribed for five credits in two courses, in the first semester and eight· credits in . three courses, in the secqnd semester. In the third semester the respondent requested permission. of the . Univernity to repeat the courses of the first semester so as to enable him to pass th'em. As a special case, he was permitted to do so, but he failed in all the five courses in respect of which he sought and obtained permission to so repeat. The respondent, however, passed (securing B+) in an optional course for which he prescribed in the thir(f semester. At the ood of the third semester the net result was that he had not cleared a single 'core course'.

The Centre of ·Russian S.tudies was dissatisfied witb the performance of the respondent and some other students and at a meeting held on January 20, 1976, the Centre decided to recommend to the Board of Studies, School of Langµages, that seven students including the respondent should be struck off the rolls o! the University for unsatisfactory performance. The recommendation of the Centre of Russian Studies was accepted by the authorities of the Univprsity and by an office order, dated January 31, 1976, the respondent and others were removed from the rolls of the University for unsatisfactory - performance as recommended by the Centre. The respondent appeared to accept the decision of the Univer· E.,, sity and kept quiet for a period of two years and six months, but in August, .1978, he filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court cliaUenging ,the .ord<;r removing him from the rolls af the University 19-647 S.C. Jndia/80 I~.-~ 622 _..

[19811 1 S.C.R SUPREMB COUll~ llEPORTS on the grol.uid that the orde11 had been made in violation of the principles of natural . justice. The Writ Petition was opPosed by t~e. University but when the Writ Petition . came for hearing on November. 24, 1978, on a query by the Court whether h was feasible to readmit the respondent, the University agreed to reconsider the question sympathetically. Thereupon, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Pursuant to · the assurance given · before the High Court the Centre of Russian · Studies considered the question once again and found itse1f unable to admit the respondent in the middle of the academic year. The respondent was, however, informed that his case could be considered in the monsoon semester commencing ~ from July 1979, that is, at the beginning of the academic year. The respondent was advised to send a fresh application tor admission.

The respondent being dissatisfied with the attitude of the University filed a fresh Writ Petition in the High Court, once again. challenging the order removing him from the rolls of the University. The High Court by their judgment, dated August 6, 1979 allowed the Writ Petition first~y on the ground that the respondent wa1s given no opportunity to show cause before action was taken against him and secondly on the ground that the University did not apply its mind to the question whether the• petitiioner's perfo11mance was unsatisfactory. The High Court quashed the order removing the respondent from the rolls of the University and gave the following directions to the University : "(1) That the petitioner B. S. Narwal should be admitted in the 7·th semester which is the monsoon 15emester of 1979; (12) that the petitioner should be permitted to complete the ten semesters by the end of the academic year 1981 so as to qualify 'him to get his M.A. Degree; ~3) that the petitioner should be permitted tc> 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 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 <me of assessment of the academic performance of a student which , the -prescrlbed a~thorities of the ,, University are best qualified and · th,e Courts perl;iaps, are least qualified to judge. · Nor can. there be any question of any opportunity to be _heard being given. One does not hear of a claim to be heard when a candidate fails to qualify ' . at an aptitude or intelligence test, written or oral. When duly qualified and' competent' academic authorities examine and assess the work of. 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 duty of an aca.demic body in such a case is 'to form an unbiased assessment of the student's standard of work based on the entirety of hi_s record and potential(1). That is their function.

The very nature of the function of academic adjudicatibn (if the use of the word adjudication iJs permissible in the con- · text) appears to us to negative any right to an opportunity to be heard. If the assessment by the academic body permitted the consideration of · 'non-academic' circumstances also, a right to be heard may be implied. But if the assessment is confi!ned to academic · performance, a right to be heard may not be so implied. Of course, if there are allegations of bias or malafides different considerations might prevail, but in the absense of allegations of bias or malafides we do not think that the declaration by an academic body that a student's academic performance is unsatisfactory, is liable to be questioned in a Court on the ground that _the student was not given an opportll!I1ity of being heard.

Large and expanding, perhaps rightly, as the field of natural justice and fail dealing is, neceslsary and wholesome as 'hearing' an affected partly even by academic bodies is, , there are limits to attempt at unnatural extensions of the doctrine of 'audi alteram partem'. Without granting absolutism to academic authorities even in academic matters, we think this case hardly calls for judicial intervention. The learned Counsel for. the respondent relied on Regine v. Aston Un~versity Senate(2) to contend that the examining body of the University was bound to give an opportunity to a student before requiring him to withdraw from the University consequent on his (1) Herring v. Templeman & Ors. -1973 (3) All E.R. 569 @ 584. (2) [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1418=1969(2) All E.R. 964. [1981] 1 S.C.R. · failure in the examination ..

Admittedly, in that caise, tb.e examiners took into 1c<>nsideration a "wide range of extraneous factors some of 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 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 1 clear 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.

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 :. B 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, [1981] 1 S.C:R. ·. 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 . Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1926 of 1980 is dismissed. N.V.K. Appeal allowed I