http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B. S. NARWAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/09/1980

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1980 AIR 1666            1981 SCR  (1) 618  1980 SCC  (4) 480

ACT:      University-Student-Unsatisfactory    performance     in studies-Name removed  from University  rolls-Opportunity  to show cause  whether to  be given-Doctrine  of  audi  alteram partem-Applicability of.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  University offered  integrated  5  years programme of  study leading  to the  award of M.A. degree in several disciplines  and languages. The programme was spread over ten  semesters in  5 academic years. The courses in the discipline in  which a  student was formally registered were known as  the ’core-courses’  while the  other  courses  for which also  the student had to prescribe were known as ’tool courses’ and ’optional courses’.      The  respondent   was  a   student  of  the  five  year integrated programme  of study  in the Master of Arts degree in Russian  Language at  the appellant  University.  In  the first two semesters, he failed to take the sessional test in any of the ’core courses’ in Russian and consequently he was not allowed  to sit  for the  end semester examinations. He, however, appeared for the examinations in the ’tool courses’ and the  ’optional courses’  in the  first two semesters. In the third  semester the  respondent requested  permission of the University  to repeat  the courses of the first semester so as  to enable  him to pass them. The University permitted him to  do so but he failed in all the five courses in which he was permitted to do so.      Dissatisfied with his performance the Centre of Russian Studies  recommended  to  the  Board  of  Studies  that  the respondent’s name  be struck  off the rolls and his name was accordingly removed from the rolls.      The High  Court, allowed the respondent’s writ petition on the  ground that:  (1) no  opportunity to  show cause was given to  him before  his name was struck off the rolls, and (2) that  the University  did not  apply  its  mind  to  the question   whether    the   respondent’s   performance   was unsatisfactory.      In the  appeal to  this Court  on the question: whether the respondent  was entitled  to  an  opportunity  of  being heard, before removing him from the rolls of the University.      Allowing the appeal:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

^      HELD: 1.  In the absence of allegations of bias or mala fides, the  declaration by an academic body that a student’s academic performance  is unsatisfactory  is not liable to be questioned in a Court on the ground that the student was not given an opportunity of being heard. [623 E-F]      This is  not a case of expulsion pursuant to a claim by the authorities of a University to discipline the student at their discretion and the right of the 619 student to  freedom and  justice. The  case is merely one of assessment of  the academic  performance of  a student which the  prescribed  authorities  of  the  University  are  best qualified and  the Courts are least qualified to judge. [623 A-B]      Herring v.  Templemen &  Ors. 1973  (3) All E. R. 569 & 584; Regina v. Aston University Senata 1969 (2) All E.R. 964 referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3115 of 1979.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and Order, dated 6-8-1979 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 395 of 1979.      K. K.  Venugopal, H.  K. Puri  and S. C. Dhanda for the Appellant.      A. K. Gupta for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. The  Jawharlal  Nehru  University, considered  to   be  one   of   the   prestigious   academic institutions of the country, is the appellant in this appeal by special  leave of  this Court  under Article  136 of  the Constitution. Named  after the  great liberal,  humanist and democrat of  the century,  the University was established by Act  of   Parliament  to   "embody  a  unique  synthesis  of Humanities, the  Sciences and  Technology" and to "endeavour to promote  the study  of principles  for  which  Jawaharlal Nehru  worked   during  his   lifetime,   namely,   national integration, social  justice, secularism,  democratic way of life, international understanding and scientific approach to the problems of society".      ’The Court’  is the supreme authority of the University and it  has the  power to  review the  acts of the Executive Council and the Academic Council. The Vice Chancellor is the Principal Executive  and Academic Officer of the University. The  Executive   Council  is   the  executive  body  of  the University,  in   charge  of   the  general  management  and administration of  the University while the Academic Council is the  academic body of the University, responsible for the maintenance  of  standards  of  instruction,  education  and examination within  the University. The Executive Council is empowered to make ’Statutes’ in the manner prescribed by the Jawaharlal Nehru  University Act and to make ’Ordinances’ in the manner prescribed by the Statutes.      Ordinances have  been duly  made and Ordinance 13 deals with the  award of  M.A., B.A.,  (Honours) and  B.A.  (Pass) degrees.  The   University   offers   Integrated   Five-Year Programmes of studies leading to the award of M.A. Degree in several Disciplines  and Languages.  Russian is  one of  the languages in  which such  a programme of studies is offered. The programme is spread over ten semesters, 620

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

in five  academic years. In the first two semesters, courses described as  ’C’ level  courses are given, in the next four semesters ’B’  level courses  are given and in the last four semesters ’A’ level courses are given. Each ’C’ level course carries two credits, each ’B’ level course three credits and each  ’A’  level  course  four  credits.  Paragraph  7.3  of Ordinance 13 prescribes a minimum of 144 credits in the case of Social  Sciences and 176 credits in the case of languages for the Master of Arts Degree, out of which there have to be a minimum  of 20 credits from ’C’ level courses, 60 from ’B’ level courses  and 64  from ’A’ level courses in the case of Social Sciences  and a minimum of 28 from ’C’ level courses, 84 from  ’B’ level courses and 64 from ’A’ level courses, in the case  of languages.  It is  further  prescribed  that  a minimum of 50% of credits but not more than 75% should be in the discipline  in which  the student is formally registered for the  Master’s degree.  It may be mentioned here that the courses in  the discipline  in which the student is formally registered are  known as  the ’core courses’ while the other courses for  which also  the student  has to  prescribe  are known as  ’Tool courses’  and ’optional  courses’. Paragraph 7.5 prescribes  that the  courses on  the basis  of which  a student earns  his ’C’  level credits  shall be atleast from four disciplines.  Paragraph 7.6  provides  that  a  student shall be  required to  earn atleast a minimum of ten credits from courses in Tools, Techniques and Methodology. Paragraph 8 of  Ordinance 13  prescribes  the  method  of  evaluation. Sessional work  is to  carry the same weight as the semester examination. In  each course  a student  is graded  on a ten point scale  and  the  final  grade  point  is  obtained  by applying the formula      Fg = #n Cigi/#n Ci Where F  is the  final grade  point of  the student C is the credit of  the ith  course, G  is the grade point secured by the student  in the  ith course and n is the total number of courses for  which the student has prescribed. A student who fails in  a course is required to repeat the course or clear another course in lieu of the course in which he has failed. Paragraph 9 of the Ordinance prescribes the minimum standard of grade  point requirements.  Every student  is required to maintain a  minimum cumulative  grade point  average of  2.0 during the  first two  semesters. At  the end  of the  sixth semester the cumulative grade point average has to be 4.0 if he is  to further  continue in the programme of study. If he is to  be awarded  the Master  of Arts degree he must have a minimum cumulative  grade point average of 4.0. Paragraph 11 of the 621 Ordinance is  important for the purposes of this case and it may be  extracted here. As it stood at the relevant time, it was as follows:           "The Board of the School, on the recommendation of      the Centre,  may remove  the name of a student from the      course  on   the  basis   of  unsatisfactory   academic      performance".      The respondent  B. S.  Narwal was admitted, in 1974, to the five  year integrated  programme  of  study  leading  to Master of  Arts Degree  in Russian Language at the Centre of Russian Studies  in the  Jawaharlal Nehru  University. As he was seeking a degree in Russian Language, the ’core courses’ had necessarily to be those concerned with Russian language, literature and  translation. In  the first two semesters, he failed to  take the  sessional tests  in any  of  the  ’core courses’ in  Russian and  consequently he was not allowed to sit for  the end  semester examinations.  He thus  failed to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

clear  any of the ’core courses’ in the first two semesters. He, however, appeared for the examinations in the ’tool’ and the ’optional  courses’  in  the  first  two  semesters  and prescribed for  five credits  in two  courses, in  the first semester and  eight credits  in three courses, in the second semester. In  the third  semester the  respondent  requested permission of  the University  to repeat  the courses of the first semester  so as  to enable  him to  pass  them.  As  a special case,  he was  permitted to  do so, but he failed in all the  five courses  in respect  of which  he  sought  and obtained permission  to so  repeat. The respondent, however, passed (securing  B+) in  an optional  course for  which  he prescribed in  the third  semester. At  the end of the third semester the net result was that he had not cleared a single ’core course’.      The Centre of Russian Studies was dissatisfied with the performance of the respondent and some other students and at a meeting  held on  January 20,  1976, the Centre decided to recommend to the Board of Studies, School of Languages, that seven students including the respondent should be struck off the rolls  of the University for unsatisfactory performance. The recommendation  of the  Centre of  Russian  Studies  was accepted by  the authorities  of the  University and  by  an office order,  dated January  31, 1976,  the respondent  and others were  removed from  the rolls  of the  University for unsatisfactory performance as recommended by the Centre.      The respondent  appeared to  accept the decision of the University and  kept quiet for a period of two years and six months, but in August, 1978, he filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the order removing him from the rolls of the University 622 on the  ground that  the order had been made in violation of the principles  of natural  justice. The  Writ Petition  was opposed by  the University  but when  the Writ Petition came for hearing  on November  24, 1978,  on a query by the Court whether it  was feasible  to  readmit  the  respondent,  the University    agreed     to    reconsider    the    question sympathetically. Thereupon, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Pursuant to  the assurance  given before  the High Court the Centre of Russian Studies considered the question once again and found  itself unable  to admit  the  respondent  in  the middle of  the academic  year. The  respondent was, however, informed that  his case  could be  considered in the monsoon semester  commencing   from  July  1979,  that  is,  at  the beginning of  the academic  year. The respondent was advised to send a fresh application for admission.      The respondent  being dissatisfied with the attitude of the University  filed a  fresh Writ  Petition  in  the  High Court, once  again, challenging  the order removing him from the rolls  of  the  University.  The  High  Court  by  their judgment, dated  August 6,  1979 allowed  the Writ  Petition firstly on  the ground  that the  respondent  was  given  no opportunity to  show cause  before action  was taken against him and  secondly on  the ground that the University did not apply its  mind to  the question  whether  the  petitioner’s performance was  unsatisfactory. The  High Court quashed the order removing  the    respondent  from  the  rolls  of  the University  and   gave  the   following  directions  to  the University:           "(1) That  the petitioner  B. S.  Narwal should be      admitted in  the 7th  semester  which  is  the  monsoon      semester of 1979;           (2) that  the petitioner  should be  permitted  to      complete the  ten semesters  by the end of the academic

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    year 1981 so as to qualify him to get his M.A. Degree;           (3) that  the petitioner  should be  permitted  to      secure the  required 180  credits by  the  end  of  the      academic year 1981 and to make up the deficiency in the      credits he  has secured so far by taking up the contact      hours, sessional  tests and semester examination of the      appropriate semester  before the completion of his 10th      semester;           (4)  that   the  University   shall   permit   the      petitioner to join the appropriate groups for taking up      the required  courses and  make proper  arrangements of      sessional tests and semester examinations at reasonable      intervals  so   as  not  to  crowd  too  many  academic      requirements at one time".      The first question for our consideration is whether the respondent was  entitled to  an opportunity  of being  heard before action 623 was taken  removing him  from the  rolls of  the University. What should be mentioned right at the outset is that this is not a case of expulsion of a student pursuant to a claim, by the authorities of a University to discipline the student at their discretion and the right of the student to freedom and justice. The  case  is  merely  one  of  assessment  of  the academic performance  of  a  student  which  the  prescribed authorities of  the University  are best  qualified and  the Courts perhaps,  are least qualified to judge. Nor can there be any  question of any opportunity to be heard being given. One does  not hear  of a  claim to be heard when a candidate fails to  qualify  at  an  aptitude  or  intelligence  test, written or  oral. When duly qualified and competent academic authorities examine  and assess the work of a student over a period of  time and declare his work to be unsatisfactory we are unable  to see  how any  question of a right to be heard can arise.  The duty  of an  academic body in such a case is ’to form an unbiased assessment of the student’s standard of work based  on the  entirety of his record and potential(1). That is  their function.  The very nature of the function of academic adjudication  (if the  use of the word adjudication is permissible in the context) appears to us to negative any right to  an opportunity  to be  heard. If the assessment by the academic  body  permitted  the  consideration  of  ’non- academic’ circumstances  also, a  right to  be heard  may be implied. But  if the  assessment  is  confined  to  academic performance, a  right to  be heard may not be so implied. Of course, if  there  are  allegations  of  bias  or  malafides different considerations  might prevail,  but in the absense of allegations of bias or malafides we do not think that the declaration by  an academic  body that  a student’s academic performance is unsatisfactory, is liable to be questioned in a Court  on the  ground that  the student  was not  given an opportunity of  being heard.  Large and  expanding,  perhaps rightly, as  the field  of natural  justice and fail dealing is, necessary  and wholesome as ’hearing’ an affected partly even by  academic bodies  is, there are limits to attempt at unnatural  extensions  of  the  doctrine  of  ’audi  alteram partem’. Without granting absolutism to academic authorities even in  academic matters,  we think  this case hardly calls for judicial intervention.      The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on Regine v. Aston  University Senate(2) to contend that the examining body of the University was bound to give an opportunity to a student before requiring him to withdraw from the University consequent on his 624

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

failure in  the examination.  Admittedly, in  that case, the examiners  took   into  consideration   a  "wide   range  of extraneous factors  some of  which their  very  nature,  for example, personal  and family  problems might only have been known to  the students themselves". Therefore. Donaldson J., observed that  in common  fairness the  students should have been given  an opportunity.  Even so, Lord Parker C. J., did not  appear   to  be  convinced  about  the  correctness  of Donaldson J’s  view and  in  Herring  v.  Templeman  &  Ors. (supra),  the  Court  of  Appeal  expressed  the  view  that Donaldson  J’s  opinion  required  reconsideration  on  some suitable future occasion.      From the  earlier narration  of facts  it would be seen that the  respondent had not cleared any of the core courses in the  first three  semesters. If  a candidate for the M.A. degree in  a certain   discipline  fails to clear any single core course in that discipline in the first three semesters, surely, no one can complain that the academic body which has declared  the  academic  performance  of  the  candidate  as unsatisfactory has  acted arbitrarily  in so  declaring. The complaint of the respondent, however, was that he was unable to clear  the ’core  courses’ in  the  first  two  semesters because  the   University  authorities   failed  to  provide teachers to  take classes  and this  was a  factor which the authorities of the University had failed to consider and the authorities must,  therefore, be  held not  to have  applied their minds.  It appears that in the very first semester the respondent joined  the University  late and  missed  several classes. The  result was that while the rest of the students had  made   sufficient  progress  in  Russian  language  the respondent who  had yet  to learn  the  alphabet  could  not straightaway join  the rest  of the  students attending  the core courses.  The therefore, had to attend other classes in Russian language  where Russian language was taught not as a ’core  subject’   but  as  a  ’tool  or  optional  subject’. According, to the respondent there was none to teach Russian language to  his group  between October 6. 1974 and December 6, 1974.  Again, in  the second  semester, though there were Russian classes  from 10th  February to  30th  March,  1975, there were  no arrangements to teach Russian language to his group after  30th March.  The High  Court appeared to attach great  importance  to  the  failure  of  the  University  to expressly deny  the respondent’s  allegation that there were no teaching  facilities between  October 6  and December  6. 1974 and  again between  10th February and 30th March, 1975. True the  University did  not  in  express  terms  deny  the allegations. But  the University  did mention  the following facts in their counter affidavit. In paragraph 5 it was said 625           "He joined  the first  semester on  22nd of August      1974 although  it started from 9th August 1974. So much      so he  was to be grouped together with students who had      offered Russian  as a non-core subject and for whom the      Russian  classes  happened  to  be  starting  from  1st      September.  Again,   from  8th  October  1975  to  20th      December 1975,  he was  not regular  in attendance. How      could  the   respondent  University  afford  a  special      curriculum for  the sake  of a  particular student  who      does not  avail  of  the  regular  course  of  teaching      provided by  the University  to a class of students? It      was no  fault of the University if the petitioner could      not attend  the classes  when they  were conducted, and      the petitioner  should  be  blamed  for  his  irregular      attendance".           Again in paragraph 9 it was said:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

         "In  reply   to  paragraph   9,  I  say  that  the      petitioner did  not join  the course on 9th August 1974      when  the   classes  for  Russian  as  a  core  subject      commenced. When the Petitioner came on 22nd August 1974      to join  the  course,  the  students  who  had  offered      Russian as  a core subject and started their classes on      9th  August,   had  made   substantial  progress.   The      Petitioner, being a beginner in Russian language, could      not be  accommodated in  any of  those groups.  He had,      therefore, to be grouped together with students who had      offered Russian  classes happened  to be  starting from      September 1."      These statements  show that  the University did run the necessary classes  for the ’core courses’ but the Respondent was unable  to take  advantage of  them on  account  of  his insufficient knowledge  of Russian,  for which reason he had to attend  classes for ’optional’ courses instead of classes for core  courses. The  University naturally could not run a special  programme   for  an   individual   student.   These statements  went  unnoticed  by  the  High  Court.  We  are, therefore, of  the view  that the  finding of the High Court that the authorities of the University were oblivious of the circumstance  that  the  University  itself  had  failed  to provide teaching  facilities in Russian and  therefore, must be considered  not to  have applied  their minds  is without factual foundation.      We have,  therefore, no  option but to allow the appeal and dismiss  the Writ  Petition filed  by the Respondent. We may add  that we  would not, in any case, have confirmed the directions given  by the  High  Court,  as  they  appear  to involve a  virtual re-writing  of  that  ordinances  of  the University. While allowing the appeal, 626 we leave  it to the University, to consider if the career of the respondent cannot be salvaged by admitting him into some appropriate semester  in accordance  with the ordinances, if he chooses  to submit  an application  for admission.  There will be no order regarding costs.      Civil  Miscellaneous  Petition  No.  1926  of  1980  is dismissed. N.V.K.                                        Appeal allowed 627