V.K Bali, J. - (1.) Paramjit Singh Mal and five others through present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek writ in the nature of certiorari declaring the action of respondents in passing of Annexure P-1, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that petitioners after having qualified the Common Entrance Test in the year 1990 were admitted in the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala in the first year of Bachelor of Engineering Course (hereinafter referred to as B.E. Course). The duration of the said course is four academic years and each academic semester is of 15-16 weeks duration. The respondent-Institute has framed Academic Regulations and Regulation 17, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in this petition, is as under : "17(a) A student will be required to repeat first year if (i) he fails to earn 40% of the credits offered in the approved scheme of courses for the first year and/or (ii) he secures (sic) CGPA less than 4.0 at the end of first year. However, while repeating first year, he will be exempted from repeating courses in which the grade earned is A, B or C in the earlier attempt. If the student, after repeating first year under 17(a) is unable to secure a CGPA of 4, 5 he will be required to leave the Institute. (b) A student (who has not repeated first year under 17(a) will be required to leave their if, at any stage his CGPA is less than 4.5 in three consecutive semesters."
(3.) Inasmuch as Regulation 17(a) requires petitioners to secure Cumulative Grade Point Average (hereinafter referred as CGPA) of 4.5 but they have not been able to do so, they were directed to leave the Institute. Aggrieved, they filed writ (CWP No. 12466 of 1992) in this Court, which, after notice of motion, was allowed and it was ordered that petitioners should be allowed to continue their studies. The order aforesaid came to be passed on the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-Institute in that case that one mercy chance shall be given to petitioners to improve their CGPA. It is admitted position that even though they availed of this mercy chance but could not improve their CGPA and, therefore, respondent-Institute took the action which has been challenged in the present petition.;