- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta to cancel the registration of the petitioner as communicated by the impugned letter dated April 28, 2016. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner had taken admission in the institute as a Schedule Caste candidate. She had participated in the first academic year consisting of three semesters. She had obtained a mark of 3.5 out of 9. The qualifying mark prescribed was 4.5. She was asked to repeat the course. She had repeated the course and had obtained 4.31 out of 9. She had failed to obtain the qualifying mark. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon (Avinash Singh Bagri & Ors. v. Registrar, IIT Delhi & Anr, 2009 8 SCC 220) and has submitted that, the institute ought to have undertaken a Slow Track Programme and ought to have allowed the petitioner to obtain the qualifying mark. The institute not having a Slow Track Programme, it was imperative that the petitioner should be allowed another chance to obtain the qualifying mark.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the institute has submitted that, the petitioner was treated under the existing rules of the institute. The existing rules provide that, a student who does not obtain the qualifying mark in the first attempt will be given a repeat chance. The petitioner was given such a chance. Even in the repeat chance the petitioner could not obtain the qualifying mark. Therefore, applying the Post Graduate Programme Rules as applicable to the student concerned, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled.
(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.;