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