INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT v. VIKRAM SRIRAM

2024:KER:78921

delivered through two primary modes: the Interactive Learning (IL) Platform and in-campus modules. The IL Platform forms the core of the programme, utilizing two-way audio/video synchronous telecommunication to connect instructors with students remotely. Clause 4.2 specifies the elective requirements for the second year. Students have to choose 15 electives, each carrying 2 credits (equivalent to 18 hours of instruction), for a total of 270 instructional hours. Clause 5 provides details regarding the grading and evaluation system. To pass the Course, students must earn a grade above 'F' in the End Term Exam, with any failing grades recorded as 'F'. Clause 5.1 describes the 13-level grading scheme, ranging from A+ to F, and at the end of each Course, instructors assign letter grades to students. Clause 5.1.4 explains how the Term Grade Point Average (TGPA) is calculated by multiplying course credits with grade points and dividing the sum by the total credits for the term. Similarly, the Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) is a composite measure of the student's overall academic performance across all terms, excluding non-credit courses.

4. For the award of the IIMK Diploma at the end of the programme, Clause 5.2.4 of the Handbook stipulates that students must meet several criteria: they must achieve a CGPA of at least 2.0 (equivalent to a C grade), have no more than 12 Deficit Credit Points (DCPs) during the second year, and ensure that all outstanding financial liabilities with the Institute are cleared. Clause 5.2.1 emphasises that both CGPA and DCP determine eligibility for promotion to the second year and for the award of the Diploma at the

3

2024:KER:78921

conclusion of the programme. If students do not meet the eligibility requirements under Clause 5.2.3 or 5.2.4, they can be terminated from the programme, however, Clause 5.2.6 allows students to apply for permission to repeat the year if they meet specific criteria. For those applying to repeat the first year, the CGPA should not fall below 2.0, and their DCPs must not exceed 18. For those applying to repeat the second year, the total DCPs must not exceed 12. The Chairperson- EPGP will assess the student's academic performance and other relevant considerations, including disciplinary records, before granting approval to repeat the year.

5. Clause 10 of the Handbook permits students to withdraw temporarily from the programme for valid reasons, with the approval of the Chairperson-EPGP. A maximum break of one year is allowed, and the student must complete the interrupted academic year within two years from the date of withdrawal. The entire program must be completed within four years from the initial registration, including any breaks. Rejoining students must pay the applicable rejoining fee along with any difference in the fee structure. However, no student is permitted to take more than two breaks during the Course of the programme. This is the outline of the Regulations governing the Course.

6. The Petitioner enrolled for the academic year 2011 - 2013. Petitioner completed the first year of the programme as per clause 5.2.3 with a Cumulative Grade Point Average of 2.077 and Deficit Credit Point - 2. In the second year, the Petitioner had to opt for elective

4

2024:KER:78921

courses with a total of 30 credits from the various areas of specialisation offered by the Respondent. The Petitioner has scored an 'F' grade in 4 subjects and a 'D' grade in one. Thus the Petitioner did not obtain the minimum eligibility stipulated under clause 5.2.4 for being awarded the Diploma. The Petitioner has also not submitted assignments in projects in 8 courses in the second year. In simpler terms, the Petitioner failed in the second year.

7. On 17 March 2014, the Petitioner wrote to the Appellant- Institute stating that there were certain reasons he could not devote time to studying the Course and decided to take six subjects during the second quarter. He stated that though he is not trying to justify his cause of lack of attendance, he sought to place on record the reasons for the same. The Appellant-Institute responded to the Petitioner on 26 March 2014, informing him that students would be permitted to repeat the second year provided that he met certain criteria, suggesting that it was open to the Petitioner to apply to repeat the second year. His response was to be informed on or before 31 March 2014. On 30 March 2014, the Petitioner wrote to the Appellant-Institute to modify the permission granted to repeat the second year and if it is not possible to do so, he may be awarded a certificate for having successfully completed the first year course. The Petitioner did not want to repeat the second year. The Petitioner repeated his request.

8. The Appellant-Institute informed the Petitioner on 19 April 2014 that failing in one program does not automatically make a student eligible to receive a certificate in another program and the

5

2024:KER:78921

Institute had never granted such a request before. The Petitioner wrote again and cited examples of some other students. It was informed that there were some instances of conversion in the first year of the programme immediately after the first year and those cases were different, and informing so, closed the correspondence with the Petitioner.

9. The Petitioner filed W. P. (C) No. 13576 of 2014 for a direction to the Appellant-Institute to permit the Petitioner to attend through remote courses the minimum required hours in the second year and issue the EPGP certificate or allow conversion of EPGP (two year programme) to Executive Post Graduate Certificate in General Management (EPGCGM) (one year programme) and to issue the EPGCGM certificate.

10. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, directed the Appellant to issue a EPGCGM certificate on completion of the first year program primarily on the ground that the Institute had discriminated against the Petitioner because other students were issued certificates and there was no bar of this conversion. Being aggrieved, the Appellant-Institute is before us.

11. By order dated 8 October 2015, the Appeal was admitted, and the direction in the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge was stayed.

12. We have heard Sri. Jai Mohan, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri. Amal George, learned counsel for the Respondent.

6

2024:KER:78921

13. In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioner has failed in the second year. The Course offered by the Appellant-Institute to which the Petitioner had enrolled was a two-year course. The petitioner had completed the first year and after that could not clear the second year. The Appellant-Institute had offered the Petitioner an opportunity to take the second year again. Thereafter, according to the Handbook, a certificate would be issued for a two-year course only after completing it.

14. The main ground on which the learned Single Judge has granted relief in favour of the Petitioner is the Annexure P2 to the petition, which was an information received by the Petitioner by making an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. From this, the Petitioner sought to contend that the other students were allowed to convert to a year programme.

15. The learned Single Judge referred to and quoted Clause 5.2.6. As per this clause, any student who is not eligible to be promoted to the second year under Clause 5.2.3 or who is not qualified for a diploma under Clause 5.2.4 will either be asked to leave or will be terminated from the program. Additionally, students who expect that they may not meet the requirements of Clauses 5.2.3 or 5.2.4 are allowed to apply to the Chairperson of the program within one week of the term results. The student can request permission to repeat the first or second year with the next batch, provided the student meets certain conditions.

16. Clause 5.2.6 limits the eligibility of students seeking to repeat any part of the program and gives the Chairperson discretion to make

7

2024:KER:78921

the final decision. Moreover, switching from a two-year program to a one-year program can only be allowed at the beginning of the Course, not later. There is however a distinction between conversion to a one- year programme in the first year or immediately at the beginning of the second year and those candidates who have failed in the second year. The Petitioner does not dispute that none of the students who were permitted switched from a two-year program to a one-year program had failed in the second year. Therefore, the Petitioner's situation is entirely different from those of other students. The Appellant-Institute made this distinction clear to the Petitioner at the outset and advised the Petitioner to retake the second-year of the Course. However, the Petitioner chose not to utilize this opportunity.

17. The case at hand concerns the maintenance of academic standards. There is no debate before us that the Course offered by Appellant-Institute is prestigious and sets high standards. If the academic policy of Appellant-Institute does not allow a change after the initial stage, that policy needs to be given due defence as it is intended to maintain academic standards. While interpreting a norm regulating an academic course, primacy has to be given to maintaining excellence in educational standards. The Honourable Supreme Court has cautioned against the interference of academic matters in the decision rendered in the case of All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan¹, unless certain well-established parameters are made out. The relevant observations are as under.

"16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the

8

2024:KER:78921

academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one Course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.

17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University[(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S)

436] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424 & 426, paras 11 &

17)

"11. … Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. … ***

17. … While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies."

18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Educationv. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27] this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56- 57, para 29)

"29. …the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men

9

2024:KER:78921

possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them."

(emphasis supplied)

***

23. This Court in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain [(2007) 4 SCC 737] pointed out: (SCC p. 746, para 16)

"16. … Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review…."

The above observations will apply with added vigour to the field of education."

(emphasis supplied)

This dicta has to be kept in mind while dealing with the case at hand.

18. A student who has taken part in the second year of the program and has failed cannot later claim the completion of a one-year program for a certificate of the one year course. As per the norms set by the Appellant, the option to switch to the one-year program should

10

2024:KER:78921

have been exercised during the first year itself. We see no reason to interfere with the Appellant-Institute's decision that the Petitioner cannot be granted a completion certificate for the one-year program after failing in the second year.

19. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The judgment and order dated 14 November 2014, delivered by the learned Single Judge in W. P. (C) No. 13576 of 2014, is quashed and set aside. The Appeal is allowed. No costs.

Sd/-

NITIN JAMDAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

S. MANU

JUDGE

Eb

11