J.M. Tandon, J. - (1.) BALBIR Singh and Raj Dev Kamal (petitioners) are regular students of the Government Polytechnic, Hamirpur, (Himachal Pradesh) which they joined in 1975. The Government Polytechnic, Hamirpur, is affiliated with the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana. According to the petitioners, they were to appear in the final examination of sixth semester on May 25, 1978, but they were suddenly informed on May 20, 1978, by pasting a notice on the notice board by the Principal that they stood detained and will not be allowed to appear in the next Board Examination because they had failed to obtain the minimum pass marks in Sessional Examination (second term of session 1977 -78). It was mentioned in the notice that the petitioners had been detained with the approval of the Rationalisation Committee of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Rationalisation Committee of the Board acts on the data/material supplied by the Principal of the Polytechnic, who in turn is supplied the marks obtained by the candidates in periodic tests taken by their teachers, according to the instructions issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Himachal Pradesh, in the circular letter Annexure P. 2. T.N. Mahajan and R.P. Chandel respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are teachers in the Polytechnic. They were not happily disposed towards the petitioners. The instructions contained in the circular letter Annexure P. 2 were not properly complied with. The data supplied to the Rationalisation Committee was defective. The petitioners were required to obtain 50 per cent marks for being eligible to appear in the final examination. They were detained and were not allowed to appear in the final examination because Balbir Singh petitioner had obtained 46 marks out of 100 and Raj Dev Kamal 38 marks out of 100. The detention of the petitioners is illegal, mala fide and unjust because the instructions contained in the circular letter had not been complied with. The petitioners have accordingly filed the present writ praying that the order of their detention and not being allowed to appear in the Board's examination may be quashed.
(2.) THE Principal, Government Polytechnic (respondent No. 2), T.N. Mahajan (respondent No. 3) and R.P. Chandel (respondent No. 4) have filed a joint written statement through respondent No. 2. The allegation of mala fide against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been denied. It is admitted that the petitioners were to appear in the sixth semester as regular candidates in May, 1978. The notice dated May 20, 1978, was issued detaining them after observing all formalities and not suddenly. The petitioners knew their performance regarding their sessional work which was intimated to them by their teachers from time to time. As per procedure prescribed in Annexure P. 2, such teacher awards sessional marks in a subject and hands over the same duly checked and signed to the Compilation Committee, which in turn submits the compiled sessional awards of all the subjects of a particular class duly checked and signed to the Principal for approval. The whole record is produced before the Rationalisation Committee of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, for final scrutiny and rationalisation. Under R. 4 of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, Examination Rules, it is necessary for a student to secure at least 50 per cent marks in sessional work for being eligible to appear in the examination. In the instant case, the compilation incharge had brought to the notice of the Principal in writing that the petitioners and another student had failed in sessional work R.C.C. Design and Drawing subjects. The Principal sent a letter to the Head of the Civil Engineering Department for rechecking the records of the failed students, including the petitioners. The Head of the Civil Engineering Department, after checking the record reported that the three students mentioned above were failing. The Principal issued notice to the failed students, including the petitioners, to appear before the Rationalisation Committee which visited the Polytechnic for rationalisation of sessional marks. The Rationalisation Committee checked the records of the petitioners and also interviewed them on May 12, 1978, at Government Polytechnic, Hamirpur. The Rationalisation Committee conveyed its decision in May 16, 1978, approving the action of the Principal regarding failure of the three students, including the petitioners, in the sessional work. It was on receipt of this decision that the petitioners were informed on May 20, 1978, by a notice about their detention. It has further been averred that the instructions Annexure P. 2 are broad guidelines for the teachers and are administrative in nature and no legal sanction is attached thereto. Three tests are required to be held in a semester as per decision of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana. In the instant case, four tests in Section A and five tests in Section B of the class in the said subject were held during the semester with sufficient time gap. The tests could not be held during the months of February and March, 1978, due to strike by the students. There has been no violation of the instructions Annexure P2. Rule 4 of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, Examination Rules, deals with the eligibility for the examination and its relevant part reads:
(3.) ELIGIBILITY for the examination: The Examination shall be open to any student who: (a) and (b)... (c) has secured at least 50 per cent marks in sessional work (home work, tutorial work, practical work and House examination/tests taken together) in each subject and in project work as laid down in the examination scheme. (d) and (e)... It is clear and is not disputed that it was necessary for the petitioners to have obtained 50 per cent marks in sessional work for being eligible to appear in the final examination of sixth semester on May 25, 1978. The petitioners did not secure 50 per cent marks in the Sessional work inasmuch as petitioner No. 1 obtained 46 per cent and petitioner No. 238 per cent marks in the Sessional work of R.C.C. Design and Drawing subjects. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the circular letter dated Nov. 29, 1976, Annexure P. 2, has been issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Himachal Pradesh, which contains instructions about the method of teaching and holding of tests for adopting a uniform procedure for maintaining sessional awards of students. These instructions are meant to be followed by the College authorities. Instructions, Nos. 4 and 6 incorporated therein were not followed. The data supplied to the Rationalisation Committee constituted under R. 25 of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, Examination Rules was incomplete and defective which in turn vitiated its decision. The petitioners could not be detained by such decision of the Rationalisation Committee. There is hardly any merit in this contention. The Principal, Government Polytechnic (respondent No. 2) has averred in his written statement that the instructions contained in circular letter Annexure P. 2 were followed except that the tests could not be held during the months of February and March, 1978, due to the strike by the students. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that there has been substantial contravention of the instructions contained in circular letter Annexure P. 2 on the part of the Principal of the Government Polytechnic or his staff. This apart, the circular letter Annexure P. 2 has no legal sanctity which otherwise is administrative in nature and contains only guidelines. The contravention of any instructions contained therein would, therefore, not vitiate the decision of the Rationalisation Committee.;