- (1.) Heard Shri. Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents-appellants and Shri. Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent.
(2.) Present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 9.11.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 51369 of 2016 (Biswadip Barua v. Union of India & Ors.). The operative portion of the judgment dated 9.11.2016 is reproduced as under:- 13. The issue that requires determination in the facts of the present case is as to whether petitioner is entitled to award of degree in terms of the provisions contained in the Ordinances framed by the University 14. Clause 10.1 of the Ordinance provides that a student who completes all programme requirement specified in Section 9 and has paid all dues to the Institute and the hostel and has no case of indiscipline against him, shall be recommended by the senate to the Board of Governors for the award of appropriate degree in ensuing convocation. Section-9 in turn consists of four sub sections. 9.1 deals with attendance requirement, whereas, 9.2 provides for minimum and maximum duration of course. Academic requirements have been specified in clause 9.3, whereas additional requirements are provided in section 9.4. The specific academic requirement is to complete successfully all the course of the curriculum prescribed for under graduate programme and attain a minimum level of academic performance i.e. obtained minimum CPI 5.0 with no E or F or X grade in any course during the entire programme. Web generate transcripts annexed by the petitioner clearly goes to show that petitioner has acquired a minimum 5 CPI and has no E or F or X grade in any course during the entire programme. It is also not the case of the respondent that petitioner has not paid dues of institute or hostel or that any case of indiscipline is pending against the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contents that academic requirement as well as award of degree under Clauses- 9.3 and 10.1 are not determinative and these clauses have to be read with clause-7 which specifies academic performance requirement. It is pointed out that under Clause - 7(i), a student unless scores SPI and CPI equal to or greater than 5 in each semester, he/she would be categorized as academically deficient and, therefore, not entitled to grant of degree. 16. In order to examine such contention, it would be appropriate to refer to SPI and CPI, which have been defined in the Ordinance. The formula by which SPI is determined is provided under Ordinance 6.3.2. Semester Performance Index is the weighted average of the grade points earned by a student in all the courses credited and described his/her academic performance in a semester. The grade points are denoted by 'g' in the formula whereas course is denoted by 'm'. The corresponding weight or credits of the course is denoted by 'w'. 17. Clause-7 of the Ordinance states that in order to enable a student to be promoted to the next higher semester of the academic performance, his/her SPI and CPI are required to be equal to or greater than 5, and that he/she ought not to have under E or F or X grade in any registered course or academic activities. Such a student, who fails to secure it is categorised as academically deficient. Clause-7 further provides that such academically deficient students would have to undergo remedial action to remove academic deficiency and he may be permitted to register for course in which he/ she has E or F or X grade . Sub Clauses-(iii) and (iv) further elaborates the manner in which academic deficiency is to be removed. The Semester Performance Index (SPI in short) essentially assesses the academic performance of a particular semester and also provides the remedial measures suggested in Clause-7. However, for the purposes of grant of degree, it is the CPI which alone is determinative under the Ordinance. The Ordinance 10.1 specifically deals with award of degree and as per it, the student has to meet the programme requirement specified in Section 9. Section 9.3 merely requires CPI of 5 with no E or F or X grade in any course during the entire programme. It appears that for the purpose of award of degree, it is the CPI which provides the benchmark for assessing a candidate's academic performance. Once the petitioner fulfils the academic requirement in terms of Clause-9.3 and is otherwise entitled to award of degree under Clause- 10.1, the respondent would not be justified in denying the award of degree to him. It seems that respondents are conscious of this position and that is why the senate in its 55th meeting has referred the matter to Chairman, Ordinance Review Committee to make provision explicit in the revised Ordinances. The resolution clearly shows that the respondents are conscious of the fact that in terms of the existing provisions of the Ordinance, the insistence of acquiring 5 SPI is not contemplated. The argument of Sri. Ramesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent, that in the past also institute has insisted upon acquiring 5 SPI in all semester, is not material inasmuch as once the field is occupied by specific ordinance, the convention or practise will have no role to step in. So long as the Ordinances are not adequately amended to require possessing of 5 SPI as a condition for grant of degree, the institute cannot insist upon such a requirement. 18. Law is otherwise settled that if an statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. Reference may be had to the judgment in Taylor v. Taylor: (1875) LR (1) CH-D-426 , as followed in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor: AIR 1936 PC 253 , which has consistently been followed. 19. In view of the discussions aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner having secured 5 CPI or above in all his semesters with no E or F or X in any course during the entire programme, is entitled to award of B. Tech. degree. Writ petition consequently is allowed. A mandamus is consequently issued to the respondents to issue B. Tech. degree to petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
(3.) The writ petition in question had been filed for a direction to the respondents to issue original mark-sheets of all semesters and degree to the petitioner for B.Tech. (Mechanical Engineering) Course passed in July, 2015. It was further prayed to declare that any amendment proposed in the ordinance shall have no retrospective effect. It appears that the petitioner had cleared All India Engineering Entrance Examination, 2011 and consequently he was allotted Moti Lal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad (MNNIT) for pursuing B.Tech. course in the Mechanical Engineering stream. The petitioner claimed that he had cleared the last semester of the course in May, 2015. Thereafter, he appeared in All India Common Admission Test conducted for admission to MBA course, and having cleared it, has been granted admission to the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta and at present he claims to have cleared first semester in the management course.;