V. K. Shukla, J. - (1.) -Petitioners, who are the students of M. J. P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, have filed present writ petition, questioning the validity of Ordinance governing admission, courses of study, examination and other matters, relating to B. Tech. Programmes enforced by Executive Council of the University with effect from 26.12.2006 and for non-implementation of new policy of 70 marks for external examination and 30 marks of internal examination and declaration of result on the basis of earlier system, i.e., 50 marks for external examination and 50 marks for internal examination.
(2.) PETITIONERS are students of 2006 batch and are being imparted instructions at the Institute of Engineering and Technology, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. Earlier, the system which was being followed for awarding marks, was 50 : 50 ratio for external and internal examinations respectively. Petitioners have submitted that when they were accorded admission, they were under impression that they would be awarded marks at the ratio of 50 : 50 for external and internal examinations respectively, and even question paper supplied to them reflected the same situation. Petitioners have contended that Ordinance has been framed, and on the basis of the same result of the first semester examination of 2007 has to be declared on the basis of 70 marks for external examination and 30 marks for internal examination, which is unjustifiable. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Counter-affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been stated that previous system of 50 : 50 ratio between the end semester examination and internal assessment had revealed many anomalies and shortcomings and same had existence of varied standards of evaluation and award of sessionals in different departments. Two clear tendencies were noticed ; under-evaluation resulting in large number of failures in different subjects, so called back papers and over-evaluation with the result that most of the students get 80% or more in sessionals. In this background, it has been stated that meeting of the Heads of the Departments and some senior teachers in the Institute of Engineering and Technology decided amongst other things to increase the weightage of end semester exam and suggested a ratio of 70:30. Thereafter, the scheme of 70:30 was placed before the Faculty Board of Faculty of Engineering and Technology on 30.10.2006 and the same was approved. Thereafter, minutes of Faculty Board was approved by the Executive Council on 26.12.2006 and on the same day notification was issued by the Registrar of the University. It has been stated that amendments in the Ordinance were not made in the mid session, rather changes were implemented much before the start of examination process and before the start of internal assessment as well. Admission process was complete towards the end of November and the first semester examinations started from 16.1.2007. Qua the papers which were supplied to the incumbents printing of 50 marks was described as printing mistake, and it has been stated that all the examinees were communicated of the said fact. It has been further stated that first semester examination was held from 16.1.2007 to 3.2.2007 and second semester examination started from 11.6.2007 to 27.6.2007. It has been stated that due to change in Ordinances, computer programme pertaining to Engineering, results had to be developed, which caused delay in declaration of results, however, non-declaration of first semester result has not posed any problem in the academic progress of first year, since all the students are promoted to the 2nd semester irrespective of the result of first semester. This fact has been denied that examinations were held on the basis 50 : 50 marks for external and internal examinations ; respectively. It has been reiterated that Registrar of the University had already notified on 26.12.2006 that internal assessment and sessionals shall be of 30 marks and end semester examination shall be of 70 marks, and in this background, it has been contended that writ petition is liable to be dismissed. To this counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit has been filed, and therein, it has been sought to be contended that in mid-session Ordinances cannot be promulgated and the authorities have acted arbitrarily and illegally.
(3.) AFTER pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri D. K. Singh, advocate, appearing on behalf of petitioners, contended with vehemence that in the present case, Ordinance in question is unsustainable, firstly for the simple reason that at no point of time Academic Council had ever sent proposal, whatsoever, and in the absence of any such proposal of Academic Council, Executive Council has no authority to promulgate Ordinances ; consequently, it is void and is unsustainable, and secondly, during midst of the academic session Ordinances could not have been promulgated, and as such petitioners are entitled to be awarded marks on the basis of 50 : 50 ratio and not 70 : 30 ratio.;