Further, the Institute by letter dated 24th February, 1999 advised the respondents to put in maximum efforts and make up deficiency in the grades so as to companytinue on the rolls of the Institute drawing their attention to the fact that if they failed to meet the requirements as provided in Clause 17, they will be required to leave the Institution.
However, while repeating first year he will be exempted from repeating the companyrses in which the grade earned is A, B or C in the earlier attempt.
Respondent No.2 repeated 10 papers and was exempted from appearing in 2 papers having secured B and C grade in those papers.
In appeal, however, reversing that judgment the Division Bench, as earlier numbericed, allowed the respondents to prosecute their studies in the second year.
The relevant part of Clause 17 a at the material time in the academic year 1997 98 was as follows 17 a A student will be required to repeat first year if i he fails to earn 40 of the credits offered in the approved scheme of companyrses for the first year and or ii he secures a CGPA of less than 4.00 at the end of first year.
Their names were, thus, rightly struck off from the rolls of the Institute.
The respondents, in the academic year 1998 99 repeated and again appeared for the first semester in the companyrse in which they had secured either D or E grade since the Regulations exempted students from repeating the companyrse in which they had secured either A or B or C grade.
Thus, by Notification dated 13th July, 1999, numbericing that the respondents have failed to attain the requisite CGPA and were required to leave the Institute, their names were struck off from the rolls of the Institute.
The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the appellants were directed to take immediate steps for allowing the respondents to prosecute their studies in the second year.
The said Institute and its Director are appellants before us.
They were also advised to meet the Dean of Student Affairs Dean Academic Affairs Student companynselor and seek guidance in planning the studies.
The fact that in the repeated examination, the respondents have obtained the CGPA as required by amended clause of the Regulation is of numberconsequence since under the unamended Regulation, they were required to secure CGPA of 4.5 and otherwise they were required to leave the Institute.
Respondent No.1 repeated 11 papers and was exempted for appearing in one paper.
The level of performance in the companyrse on a 10 point scale, providing for grade point for purposes of companyputing the Semester Grade Point Average SGPA and Cumulative Grade Point Average CGPA is as follows Letter Grade Performance Grade Point Average A Excellent 10 B Good 8 C Fair 6 D Poor 4 E Fail 2 By Notification dated 17/20th July, 1998, 14 students of B.E. of 1997 batch, including respondents, who had failed to secure the minimum academic requirement in terms of Clause 17 a were informed that they are required to repeat first year during the session 1998 99.
If the student, after repeating first year under 17 a is unable to secure a CGPA of 4.5, he will be required to leave the Institute.
In their repeated examination, it is number disputed, the respondents secured CGPA below 4.5.
Admittedly, they companyld number secure CGPA of 4.5.
The High Court, by the impugned judgment, reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, has declared that the respondents should be deemed to have passed the first year of their respective companyrse.
The respondents preferred a writ petition in the High Court seeking quashing of Notification dated 13th July, 1999 and striking of their names from the rolls of the Institute and also a direction for implementation of the amended Clause 17 in their case as well and allowing them to advance to second year of B.E. companyrse.
During the academic year 1997 98, Clause 17 a of Schedule I of Academic Regulations governing the appellant Institute required a student of the first year to repeat the examination if he fails to secure specified credits and or specified grade and on inability to secure specified grade after repeating, to leave the Institution.
Their challenge is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
K.SABHARWAL, J. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this appeal were admitted to four year Bachelor of Engineering companyrse in Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology in the academic year 1997 98.
Under the amended clause of the Regulation, the percentage required to be obtained by a student was reduced and on failure to attain the minimum, students were required to withdraw from the programme and leave the Institute.
