http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOPAL GOWDA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/03/1965

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. SUBBARAO, K. BACHAWAT, R.S.

CITATION:  1965 AIR 1932            1965 SCR  (3) 229

ACT:     Mysore  University Act, 1956, ss. 22, 23,  43--Power  to make regulations for "maintenance of standards"--Scope of.

HEADNOTE:    Under  Sections 22, 23, and 43 of the  Mysore  University Act,  the Academic Council of the University was  empowered, inter alia, to control and operate the teaching, courses  of study, to secure maintenance of standards, etc., and to make necessary   regulations   including    those   relating   to examinations   and  conditions  on  which  students  may  be admitted to examinations, degrees, diplomas, etc.   In  exercise  of these powers, the Academic  Council  made certain  Regulations  relating to the grant of a  degree  of Bachelor  of Veterinary Science and by clause 3(c  of  these Regulations, it was provided that no candidate who failed an examination  four  times, would permitted  to  continue  the course. The   respondents   were  declared  unsuccessful   in   four successive First Year Course examinations and the Controller of  Examinations informed each respondent that he  had  lost their  right  to  continue  studying  for  the  degree.  The respondents  thereupon  filed petitions in the  High  Court, praying   for  the  issue  of  writs  quashing  the   orders communicated to them and directing the University to  permit them  to  appear for the subsequent   examinations   and  to continue their studies. The  High  Court held that Regulation 3(c)  was  beyond  the competence of the Academic Council and the University. On appeal to this Court: HELD:  that  power to maintain standards in  the  course  of studies  confers authority not merely to  prescribe  minimum qualifications  for  admission, courses  of  study,  minimum attendance  at an institution which may qualify the  student for admission to the examination, etc.,but also authority to refuse  to   grant  a degree,  diploma,  or  other  academic distinction  to students who fail at the  final  examination and to direct that a student, who is proved not to have  the ability  or  the aptitude to complete the  course  within  a reasonable time,discontinue the course. There   is  no  warrant  for  restricting   the   expression

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

"maintenance  of standards" only to matters such as  minimum attendance, length of the course and prescription of minimum academic attainments. [233F-H]

JUDGMENT:  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals  Nos.   565-566 of 1963. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated January  31,  1962  of  the  Mysore   High   Court  in  Writ Petitions Nos. 940 and 1056 of 1961. G.S.  Pathak  and  M/s.  Rajinder Narain  and  Co.  for  the appellants. R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Shah,  J.  These appeals raise the question whether  the Academic  Council of the Mysore University was competent  in exercise 230 of  the powers conferred by ss. 22, 23 and 43 of the  Mysore University  Act  23  of  1956  to  frame  cl.  3(c)  of  the Regulations relating to the grant of the degree for Bachelor of  Veterinary Science (B.V.Sc.). The Mysore University  Act 23  of  1956---hereinafter  referred to  as  ’the  Act’--was enacted to provide for the reorganisation of the  University of  Mysore and other incidental matters. The powers  of  the University  are described in s. 4. Section 21  provides  for the  constitution of the Academic Council--which is  one  of the  authorities  of  the  University  designated  under  s. 13--and  s. 22 sets out the powers of the Academic  Council. It provides:                      "The Academic Council shall, subject to               the  provisions of this Act, have the  control               and general regulation of teaching, courses of               studies to be pursued, and maintenance of  the               standards  thereof  and  shall  exercise  such               other powers and perform such other duties  as               may be prescribed."               By s. 23 other powers of the Academic  Council               are prescribed. Insofar as it is material, the               section provides:                      "In particular and without prejudice to               the  generality  of the  powers  specified  in               section  22, the Academic Council shall  have,               subject  to  the provisions of this  Act,  the               following powers, namely:               (a)      x      x      x      x               (b)      x      x     x     x                   (c)   to  make  Regulations  relating   to               courses,    schemes   of   examinations    and               conditions on which students shall be admitted               to   the  examinations,   degrees,   diplomas,               certificates and other academic distinctions;"               Section  43 of the Act sets out the  scope  of               the Regulations. enacts:                      "Subject to the provisions of this Act,               the  Regulations may provide for the  exercise               of  all  or any of the powers,  enumerated  in               "sections  22 and 23 of this Act and  for  the               following matters, namely:               (i)   the   admission  of  students   to   the               University;                   (ii)  the recognition of the  examinations

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             and   degrees   of   other   Universities   as               equivalent to the examinations and degrees  of               the University;                   (iii)    the   University   courses    and               examinations  and  the  conditions  on   which               students  of  the  University  and  affiliated               colleges  and other  University   institutions               shall  be  admitted to  examinations  for  the               degrees,  diplomas  and  certificates  of  the               University; and                      231               (iv) the granting of exemptions." In  exercise of the powers conferred by ss. 22, 23  and  43, Academic Council made Regulations relating to the grant of a degree  for Bachelor of Veterinary Science. Clause  3(c)  of the Regulations is as follows:       "No candidate who fails four times shall be  permitted to continue the course." The Mysore Veterinary College, Hebbal, Bangalore, is one  of the  colleges  affiliated to the University  of  Mysore  for training  students  for  the degree course  in  Bachelor  of Veterinary Science (B.V.Sc.).     These  two  appeals  arise on facts  which  are  closely parallel.  Gopala  Gowda--respondent  in  C.A.  No.  565  of 1963--was  admitted  in the year 1958 as a  student  in  the First  Year Course in the Mysore Veterinary College.  Gopala Gowda  was  declared unsuccessful in four  successive  First Year  Course examinations. The Controller  of  Examinations, Mysore  University,  then informed Gopala  Gowda  by  letter dated  August  2,  1961  that he "had  lost"  his  right  to continue  studies  for the Bachelor  of  Veterinary  Science (B.V.Sc.)  course under Regulation 3(c) of  the  Regulations governing  the  course  of study framed  by  the  University leading to the degree of the Bachelor of Veterinary  Science (B.V.Sc.).  Gopala  Gowda then presented a petition  in  the High  Court of Mysore praying that, for reasons set  out  in his affidavit, the High Court do  issue  a writ quashing the order communicated by the Controller of Examinations in  his letter  dated  August  2, 1961 and  do  further  direct  the University  of Mysore and the Controller of Examinations  to permit him to appear for the subsequent examinations and  to prosecute  his  training  for  the  Bachelor  of  Veterinary Science  Course.  The other respondent Bheemappa  Reddy  had also  failed  to satisfy the examiners  in  four  successive First  Year Course examinations commencing from April  1959, and  on  being intimated by the Controller  of  Examinations that  he will not be permitted to continue his training  for the  Bachelor of Veterinary Science (B.V. Sc.) course  under Regulation  3(c),  he flied a similar writ petition  in  the High Court.     The  High Court of Mysore held that Regulation  3(c)  of the  Regulations  governing the course of study  leading  to conferment  of the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary  Science of the Mysore University could not be said "to subserve  the purpose  of maintaining the standards mentioned in s. 22  of the  Mysore University Act" and on that account  was  beyond the competence of the Academic Council or the University and those  bodies  had  no power to  prevent  Gopala  Gowda  and Bheemappa from prosecuting their studies and from  appearing at  the  subsequent examinations. With  special  leave.  the University of Mysore, the Controller of Examinations and the Principal of the Mysore Veterinary College, have appealed.     In  the view of the High Court, under s. 22 of  the  Act the Academic Council could prescribe minimum  qualifications for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

232 admission  to a degree course in an affiliated college,  and also    could   prescribe   standards   which   qualify    a candidate   .for  admission  to  the  degree   or   academic distinction, but the Council had not the power to  prescribe a condition on the ’satisfaction of which a student:admitted to  the  Course could prosecute his study in the  course  to which  he had been admitted. Power to frame Regulations  for "maintenance  of standards" within the meaning of s. 22  and prescribing conditions on which a student shall be  admitted to an examination within the meaning of s. 23(3) (c)did not. in  the  opinion. of the High Court, import  power  to  make Regulation  preventing a student admitted to a  course  from prosecuting  his study, for the only consequence of  failure in  an  examination  is that the student  does  not  qualify himself  for admission to the degree sought by him. and  the University  would be entitled to withhold conferment of  the degree. but not to obstruct the prosecution of the course of study. The expression "maintenance of standards" in the view of the High Court could only take in considerations such  as undergoing  a  course  of study  and  keeping  a  prescribed minimum   attendance   to  an  institution   maintained   or recognised by the University, but it does not and "cannot be taken to mean that by reason only of the fact that a student has  not attained the standard of knowledge  or  proficiency required for passing the examination within that period,  he can be said to be for all times incapable of attaining  that standard." The High Court proceeded to observe "The power to maintain certain standards before a degree or other academic distinction is conferred upon a person involves the power to withhold  the  conferment  of that degree  unless  a  person attains  the  necessary standard, but it  cannot  either  in logic or in justice involve the power to refuse to permit  a person to attain that standard. That power can and should be exercised at the time of admission into the course of  study if  the  University  is of the opinion  that  the  applicant for  .admission  into the course does not even  possess  the minimum suitability for taking that course of study. Once it admits him into the course of study, it must be held to have entertained  the  opinion  that he  does  have  the  minimum suitability to take that course which means that he has  the capacity  by  undergoing the course of study to  attain  the standard necessary for receiving the degree."     We  are unable to agree with the view expressed  by  the high Court. The Academic Council is invested with the  power of  controlling and generally regulating teaching,.  courses of  studies to be pursued. and maintenance of the  standards thereof.  and  for those purposes the  Academic  Council  is competent  to make regulations. amongst others, relating  to the courses, schemes of examination and conditions on  which students  shall  be admitted to the  examinations.  degrees. diplomas. certificates and other academic distinctions.  The Academic  Council is thereby invested with power to  control the entire academic life of the student from the stage of 233 admission. to a course of study  to the. ultimate conferment of  a degree or academic distinction. Admission to a  course or branch of study depending upon possession of the  minimum qualifications   prescribed  does not divest  the  Academic. Council  of  its control over the’ academic  career  of  the student,  for the Council has for maintaining standards  the power  to prescribe schemes  of examinations,  arid also  to prescribe  conditions on which students. Shall  be  admitted to  the  examinations. "Power to  prescribe  conditions,  On which,  a   student may be admitted to the examinations,  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

our  opinion,  necessarily implies the power  to  refuse  to admit  a student in certain    contingencies, for the  power to  admit  to an examination implies the power to  weed  out students who have on the application of a   reasonable  test proved  themselves to be unfit to continue the  course    or persecute training in that course. If on account of  general inaptitude for being trained in a course or on  account   of supervening  disability  to prosecute a course of  study,  a student  admitted to that   course is found by the  Academic Council  to be unfit to prosecute   his training, it  would, in  our  judgment,  be  within the  power  of  the  Academic Council,  in  exercise  of  its  authority  to  control  and maintain  standards, and also of its authority to  prescribe conditions   on     which  students  may  be   admitted   to examinations,  to direct that the student shall  discontinue training  in  that  course. And failure by    a  student  to qualify  for promotion or degree in four  examinations,   is certainly   a   reasonable  Lest  of  such   inaptitude   or supervening  disability.  If after securing admission to  an institution imparting   training for professional courses, a student  may be held entitled to   continue indefinitely  to attend the  institution  without  adequate   application and to continue to offer himself for successive examinations,  a lowering  of academic standards would   inevitably   result. Power to maintain standards in the course of studies. in our judgment, confers authority not merely to prescribe  minimum qualifications for admission, courses of study, and  minimum attendance at   an institution which may qualify the student for  admission to the   examination, but also  authority  to refuse  to grant a degree, diploma,   certificate  or  other academic distinction to students  who  fail to   satisfy the examiners  at  the final examination, and to direct  that  a student  who  is  proved  not to have  the  ability  or  the aptitude  to   complete the course within a reasonable  time to  discontinue  the    course.  There  is  no  warrant  for restricting  the expression "maintenance of  the  standards" only to matters such as minimum   attendance, length of  the course and prescription of minimum   academic attainments.     The  High Court was therefore in error in  holding  that the  Academic Council had no power to  prescribe  Regulation 3(c).  We are informed at the Bar, however, that  since  the High  Court decided. the case on January 31, 1962,  the  two respondents  were  permitted to continue  their  courses  of study and they have appeared for the subsequent examinations and they were declared to have duly 234 passed their second and third year examination and have been permitted  to  keep terms for the degree  examination.  Even though,  the view taken by the High Court was erroneous,  we do not think. having regard to the fact that the respondents were  permitted  to  continue their  course  of  study,  the University not having applied for any interim orders pending disposal  of these appeals, that any order should be  passed in  these  appeals so as to deprive the respondents  of  the training they have received.     These  appeals are filed with special leave, and in  the exceptional  circumstances of the case, we do not  think  we would  be  justified, merely because we  disagree  with  the interpretation of the High Court of the relevant regulation, in  making an effective order against the respondents so  as to nullify the results declared by the University concerning them in respect of the second and third year examinations.     The  appeals are therefore dismissed. There will  be  no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.

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

235