Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a B.Pharmacy student admitted in Government College of Pharmacy for the academic year 2020-21, challenged a notification dated 23.02.2021 issued by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. The notification altered the passing criteria for the B.Pharmacy course by reducing the benefit of grace marks from up to 10 marks per semester (max 5 per subject) to up to 5 marks per semester (min 3 in any one subject), and lowering the minimum end-semester marks from 40% to 35% while maintaining the overall 50% requirement. The earlier notification dated 10.04.2019 was in force when the petitioner took admission on 04.01.2021, delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner contended that the new notification should not apply to him retrospectively, as it was issued after his admission, and that he had a legitimate expectation based on the earlier criteria. The University argued that it had statutory power under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, to make ordinances regulating examinations and that the notification was duly approved by the Board of Studies, Academic Council, and Syndicate. The High Court examined Section 35 of the Act and held that the University indeed had the power to alter passing criteria. It found that the notification had been made after exhaustive consideration by the requisite academic bodies, thus it was in accordance with law. The court emphasized the principle that courts should be extremely reluctant to interfere in academic matters formulated by expert bodies possessing technical expertise and practical experience. It held that judicial review under Article 226 should not substitute the court's own views for those of academic authorities. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned notification was upheld as applicable to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Education - Examination Passing Criteria - Power of University to Alter Criteria - Karnataka Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, Sections 35(2)(d), 35(2)(i), 35(3) - The University has the power under Section 35(2) to frame ordinances regarding conduct of examinations and conditions for passing, including alteration of passing criteria; the notification was passed after due process with consideration by Board of Studies, Academic Council and Syndicate - Held, the University acted within its powers (Paras 10-13). B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Academic Decisions - Scope of Intervention - Article 226, Constitution of India - Courts are extremely reluctant to substitute their own views in academic matters formulated by professional bodies with technical expertise; judicial review is limited and must avoid pedantic or idealistic approaches isolated from practical realities - Held, the impugned notification being an academic matter, the Court declines to interfere (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned notification altering passing criteria is applicable to the petitioner who was admitted prior to its issuance; Whether the University had the power to issue such notification; Whether the court should interfere in academic matters under Article 226.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court held that the University had the power to alter the passing criteria under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, and that the impugned notification dated 23.02.2021 was made in accordance with law after due consideration by the relevant academic bodies. Citing principles of judicial restraint in academic matters, the Court declined to interfere and upheld the notification.
Law Points
- Courts should be extremely reluctant to substitute their own views in academic matters
- University has power to issue ordinances regulating passing criteria under Section 35(2) of Karnataka Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act
- 1994
- judicial review in academic decisions is limited and must be exercised with restraint
- notification applicable to students of academic year 2020-21 is not retrospective
