N.K.SODHI, J. - (1.) Petitioners are students of Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala (for short the Institute). They were admitted to the first year of the Bachelor of Engineering course for the academic session commencing from July, 1999 and were granted admission on the basis of their merit in the Combined Entrance Test conducted for the purpose. The duration of the course is four academic years and each year is divided into two semesters. An examination is held at the end of each semester according to the syllabi prescribed by the Institute. Petitioners took the first semester examination and also the 2nd semester examination. They secured 40% of the credits offered to them in these two semesters but failed to secure 3.7 Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) at the end of the first year. Their names were struck off from the rolls and they were asked to leave the Institute. This action was taken by the Institute in terms of Regulation 17 of the Regulations which after its amendment on 2-7-1999 then stood as under :- "A student will be required to withdraw from the under-graduate programme and leave the Institute;(i) If at the end of first year, he/she is unable to secure a CGPA of greater than or equal to 3.70 and earn 40% of the credits offered in the approved scheme of courses.(ii) If, at the end of second year, he/she is unable to secure a CGPA of greater than or equal to 4.50 and earn 50% of the credits offered in the approved scheme of courses."Feeling aggrieved by the action of the Institute in removing their names from the rolls, the petitioners filed CWP 8929 of 2000 in this Court. The Institute took the stand that according to the amended Regulation a student was required to fulfill both the conditions of securing 3.7 CGPA as also earning 40% of the credits if he had to continue with the course and in case he failed to achieve either of them he was required to leave the Institute and that the word "and" used in-between the two conditions was intended to be read disjunctively. Since the petitioners failed to secure 3.7 CGPA at the end of the first year even though they secured 40% of the credits, their names, according to the Institute, could be removed from the rolls. We did not accept this plea of the Institute and on the language used in Regulation 17 held that a student could be asked to leave the Institute only if he failed to get both 3.7 CGPA and earn 40% of the credits and that in case a student failed to get only one of the two, his name could not be removed from the rolls and he could not be asked to leave the Institute. The word "and" used in-between the two conditions specified in Regulation 17 was held to have been used conjunctively and, therefore, a student could not be asked to leave unless both the conditions were satisfied. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the action of the Institute in removing the names of the petitioners from its rolls was quashed. Dissatisfied with our order, the Institute preferred a special leave petition in the Supreme Court which came up for hearing on 24-11-2000. The Institute made a prayer that the same be dismissed as withdrawn as it proposed to amend Regulation 17 to make it explicit that if one of the two conditions contained in the Regulation was fulfilled the student could be required to leave the Institute. In other words, the Institute wanted to clarify its intention that the two conditions contained in Regulation 17 were disjunctive and not conjunctive. The special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn. As a result of the decision of this Court in CWP 8929 of 2000 and the dismissal of the special leave petition, the petitioners were allowed to continue their studies and join the 3rd semester of the course. They took the 3rd semester examination which commenced from 6-12-2000. They are presently studying in the 4th semester and will take the examination at the end of this semester sometime in June this year.
(2.) After the dismissal of the special leave petition, the Institute amended Regulation 17 with effect from 27/28-11-2000 and the amendment was notified by the Acting Registrar. The amended Regulation reads as under :-"A student will be required to withdraw from the B.E. (including Lateral Entry for Diploma Holders)/M.C.A./M.Sc. programme and leave the Institute :(a) if at the end of the first year, he/she(i) fails to secure a CGPA of greater than or equal to 3.70or(ii) fails to earn 40% of the credits offered in the approved scheme of courses.(b) if at the end of 2nd year, he/she(i) fails to secure a CGPA of greater than or equal to 4.50or(ii) fails to earn 50% of the credits offered in the approved scheme of courses.Explanation : A student who fails to satisfy either or both the conditions mentioned in sub-clause (i) and (ii) of clause (a) or (b), as the case may be, will be required to leave the Institute. For B.E. Lateral Entry Programme, only clause (b) will be applicable."As already observed, the petitioners have taken the 3rd semester examination held in December, 2000 and it appears that they have not fared well. They are continuing with their studies in the 4th semester and will take the examination at the end of this semester sometime in June this year and they seem apprehensive that they will not be able to secure a CGPA of greater than or equal to 4.5 or earn 50% of the credits offered in the approved scheme of courses and, therefore, they are likely to be asked to leave the Institute at the end of the 2nd year in terms of the amended Regulation. They have, thus, filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the amendment made in November, 2000.
(3.) At the outset we may observe that the petitioners have yet to take the 4th semester examination and in any case it cannot yet be known whether they would secure a CGPA of at least 4.5 or earn 50% of the credits offered in the approved scheme of courses at the end of the 4th semester/2nd year and, therefore, the writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed as such. Since the counsel for the parties had argued at length regarding the validity of the amended Regulation, we propose to decide the same.;