2014 (11) TMI 1291 - HC - Indian Laws

Maximum period, also called the span period, prescribed by the University of Delhi and Jamia Millia Islamia University for completing the various courses / programmes being conducted by the said Universities - absence of any power of relaxation of span period in the respondent Jamia Millia Islamia University - HELD THAT - The students cannot be said to have any right to complete the course / programme to which they have sought admission, in whatever time they may deem proper, particularly when the rules of the University provide otherwise. The students having taken admission to a University, are governed by the rules and regulations thereof. They even otherwise have no right to claim that there should be no span period for completing an educational course / programme or as to what the said time period should be or whether there should be any provision of relaxation therein or not. No such right was argued by any of the counsels inspite of our specifically posing the said query. It cannot also be lost sight of that the span period is the outer limit for completing the educational course / programme and is generally found to be double the duration otherwise prescribed for the course / programme. The relaxation /exemption which is being sought is thus found to be inbuilt in the span period. The arguments thus urged, of the rule/regulation of span period being harsh, are of no avail. The counsels, inspite of our asking were unable to cite and we have also not been able to find any principle of law which mandates making a provision for relaxation of a rule. Man Singh and Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation (supra), referred to in this regard on our prodding have no application. In fact the very purpose of making a rule and fixing a time limit is to govern the human conduct and behaviour and once a grace period is inbuilt in the rule, no argument of the same being harsh can be urged. The only order which can be made in these proceedings is to direct the Universities to consider the matter, including in the light of our aforesaid observations, within a time bound period. Needless to state that if the outcome is to do away with the span period or to provide relaxation therein, the appellants/petitioner would be the beneficiaries thereof, notwithstanding having so become time barred prior thereto. Else, as we have already observed, appellants/petitioner have no right. The respondent University of Delhi are directed to, within three months herefrom, have the aspects of, (a) need to continue with the span period; (b) whether Ordinance X-C applies to span period also, in the meeting of its Academic Council; and to pass a Resolution on both aspects giving reasons therefor - respondent Jamia Millia Islamia University directed to have the matter relating to the need for having the span period and if so, the need to provide for exemption in exceptional cases therefrom, considered in its appropriate body and to pass a reasoned order thereon, within three months from today - the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi are directed to, in consultation with the educationist, in an appropriate fora, debate and arrive at a consensus and to lay down Policy Guideline to be followed by the Universities in the matter of the need for having a span period for completing the courses/ programmes being offered by the Universities. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the span period prescribed by the University of Delhi and Jamia Millia Islamia University for completing courses.
2. Authority of the Registrar of the University of Delhi to issue a notification overriding the Academic Council's resolution.
3. Applicability of Ordinance X-C of the University of Delhi in granting exemptions from the span period.
4. The impact of the notification dated 10th October 2012 on the rights of students.
5. The refusal of the University of Delhi to conduct a special examination for students who missed it due to being late.
6. The absence of a relaxation provision for the span period in Jamia Millia Islamia University.
7. The broader implications of span periods on the right to education and the need for policy guidelines.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Span Period:

The judgment discusses the span period as the maximum duration allowed for completing a course, generally double the prescribed course duration. The court emphasized that students do not have the right to complete courses at their discretion when university rules stipulate otherwise. The span period is a policy decision within the university's purview, and the court found no legal principle mandating relaxation provisions. The court noted that the span period inherently includes a grace period and thus is not harsh.

2. Authority of the Registrar:

The appellants argued that the Registrar lacked authority to issue the notification dated 10th October 2012, which eliminated the possibility of granting special chances beyond the span period. They contended this action contravened the Academic Council's resolution and Ordinance X-C. The court examined the powers of the Registrar vis-`a-vis the Academic Council and found that the Registrar's notification was issued without proper authority, as the Academic Council is the academic body responsible for such decisions.

3. Applicability of Ordinance X-C:

Ordinance X-C allows the Academic Council to grant exemptions from certain ordinances, but the university argued it does not extend to the span period. The court noted that for decades, the university interpreted Ordinance X-C as applicable to the span period, and a sudden change in this interpretation lacked justification. The court suggested that the Academic Council should reconsider this interpretation.

4. Impact of Notification Dated 10th October 2012:

The court held that the notification could not retroactively affect students who had already commenced their courses under the previous interpretation of Ordinance X-C. However, the court also stated that a change in interpretation does not vest any right in students to avail of the previous interpretation.

5. Refusal to Conduct Special Examination:

For students who missed the special examination due to being late, the court upheld the university's decision not to conduct another exam. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to examination schedules and rules, noting that allowing exceptions would undermine the integrity of the examination process.

6. Absence of Relaxation Provision in Jamia Millia Islamia University:

The court addressed the absence of a relaxation provision for the span period in Jamia Millia Islamia University. It recognized the rigid nature of the rule but did not find it legally unsustainable. The court noted that the university had previously granted relaxations, but such actions did not establish a legal precedent.

7. Broader Implications and Policy Guidelines:

The court reflected on the broader implications of span periods, considering the evolving nature of education and the importance of lifelong learning. It suggested that educational institutions should re-evaluate the necessity of span periods in today's context. The court directed the Ministry of Human Resource Development to consider the need for policy guidelines regarding span periods, emphasizing the balance between educational standards and the right to education.

Conclusion:

The court directed both universities to reconsider their policies on span periods and to involve their academic councils in these decisions. It also urged the Ministry of Human Resource Development to develop policy guidelines on the issue. The judgment highlights the tension between maintaining academic standards and accommodating the diverse needs of students in a rapidly changing educational landscape.