Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) The petitioner was granted admission in the B.Tech course of the Aligarh Muslim University for the Sessions 2002-03. He appeared in the first and second semester examinations of the first year. By an order dated 10.10.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, the petitioner and other 28 students of the first year who were provisionally permitted to attend classes of second year of B.Tech/B.Arch, were found not eligible for promotion and as such their names were removed from the roll of the faculty on the ground that they had not earned the requisite number of credits as was required as per Clause 14.2 of the Ordinances (Academic) - XXXIV (E). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2003, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers: i)a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 10.10.2003 passed by respondent No. 2 in so far as it concerns the petitioner (Annexure-5 to writ petition); ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to restore the name of the petitioner to the B.Tech (Civil Engg.) Programme, 2002-2003 and permit the petitioner to pursue studies in such year and semester as may confer to the rules; iii) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and iv) award costs in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) For proper appraisal of this case, it would be necessary to examine the relevant Clause 14.2 of the Ordinance, which reads as under:A student who earns less than 15 credits (with a minimum passing grade 'D' or above) at the end of the first semesters examination will be warned by DCAC for his/her poor performance and if he is unable to earn at least 30 credits at the end of the second semester his/her admission from B.Tech. Degree Programme shall be terminated.
(3.) The said provision of the Ordinance has not been challenged in this writ petition. The only contention of the petitioner is that the said clause itself provides for that a student who has earned less than 15 credits in a semester would be informed and warned of his/her poor performance at the end of the first semester. Undisputedly, the petitioner had earned less than 15 credits in both the Semesters. The result of the first semester was declared after much delay and as such there was no question of the petitioner having been given any warning of having earned less credits in the first semester. The petitioner thus submits that, as required under the Statute, since he was not duly warned, he could not improve upon his performance and accordingly the said provision of the Ordinance requiring a student to earn a particular number of earned credits would not be applicable in the present case.;