- (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.4.2003 issued by respondent no. 3 Dr. E.M.Rao, Dean (Academics) and Professor (PM & IR) Xaviers Labour Relations Institute directing the petitioner to withdraw from the Personnel Management Course and further prayed for re -evaluation of his result after giving consideration to the recommendation of the Member Placement Committee and also permit him to continue his course.
(2.) PETITIONER joined the course of Personnel Management and Industrial Relations (PM and IR) in the Xaviers Labour Relations Institute (in short XLRI) at Jamshedpur in the Academic Session 2002 - 2004 and was allotted Roll No. 37. Petitioner 'scase is that due to the nature of the duties assigned to him by the Committee he missed several classes due to the late hours he had to put in being in the logistic team and would often have to run to the railway station at odd hours, escort company representatives to and from railway stations, hotels, perform hotel bookings, book railway tickets. He thus had to stay up nights from many nights and thus missed classes and was delayed in submitting reports, projects, assignments etc. It is stated by the petitioner while he was undergoing his Summer Internship at Mumbai in the Bombay S.T. Corp. of India he received a letter dated 10.4.2003 under the signature of respondent no.3 whereby he was informed that he had secured "D" grades in four courses and as such he was required to repeat the first year in its entirety, or in the alternative, withdraw from the programme. Petitioner informed respondent no. 3 that he was not satisfied with the grade awarded to him, which was only due to absence from classes. Petitioner requested the respondent -Dean to look into the matter otherwise he would lose a year. Petitioner alleged that he was never informed by the respondent that his absence from classes and delay in submitting projects etc. would be detrimental to his studies. All of a sudden, the impugned letter dated 21.4.2003 was issued by the petitioner informing him that he had secured one more D + grade and as such he is required to withdraw from the programme. Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed counter affidavit seriously questioning the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground inter alia that respondent -Xaviers Labour Relations Institute is neither a State nor the instrumentality of the State and has not been discharging any public duty and therefore it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Respondents ' case is that petitioner secured not a single A+ or A in any course taught in any of the three terms covering 23 courses during the first year and his academic performance was consistently poor throughout the first year. It is stated that as per the Rule 25 of the Student Manual 2002 if the student obtains lower grade i.e., 'D ' and 'F during the first and second year and Cumulative Quality Point Index (CQPI) obtained by the student at the end of first year and at the end of second year will stand disqualified from pursuing the programme. According to the respondents the Placement Committee is constituted by the students, the election to the Committee are conducted by the students and the institute has no role whatsoever to play in the process and has nothing to do with the affairs of the Placement Committee. Petitioner voluntarily opted to become a member of the Placement Committee and therefore even if the petitioner was opted in the form of the placement committee that will not be excluded from attending the classes. Respondents ' further case in the counter affidavit is that as soon as the tally of 'D ' Grades reached four, the petitioner was promptly and without any delay informed to the effect that he was required to repeat the programme from the first year de novo. Thereafter, the grades of other courses were received from the faculty concerned and when it was found that he obtained one more 'D ' Grade in the course (Production Management), consequently impugned letter was issued to the petitioner requiring him to withdraw from the programme. Action to the respondents is therefore perfectly justified.
(3.) MR . Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned letter issued by the respondents as being illegal and wholly unjustified. Learned counsel firstly submitted that although petitioner requested by letter dated 14.2.2003 for re -evaluation of the papers as he has been victimized on the ground that delay and absence from the courses which was not for his own fault but because of the assessment given to him by the Placement Committee. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned letter is harsh and completely jeopardize petitioner 'seducation career, which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.;