Supreme Court of India
AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS.versusREGISTRAR IIT DELHI AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1043
- Decided
- 12 August 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K G BALAKRISHNAN
Holding
SC and ST are a separate class for whom the creamy‑layer principle does not apply, and IIT Delhi must reconsider the expulsions and may grant the petitioners another opportunity to complete their studies.
Summary
The petitioners, who are SC/ST/OBC students admitted to IIT Delhi for B.Tech, were expelled after failing to meet the minimum credit requirements in their first two years. They argued that the institute provided no special coaching, summer courses, or a slow‑track programme, thereby violating the constitutional mandate to protect weaker sections under Article 46 and the reservation policy. The Court examined whether the creamy‑layer principle applies to SC/ST, whether the institute’s regulations denying appeal in the first two years are valid, and whether the institute must provide remedial measures. It held that SC and ST constitute a separate class for whom the creamy‑layer concept does not apply and that the state must take special care to enable them to continue their studies. Accordingly, the Court directed IIT Delhi to reconsider the expulsions afresh, taking into account special provisions for reserved categories and to grant the petitioners another opportunity to complete their courses.
Issues considered
- Whether expulsion of SC/ST/OBC students for not meeting credit requirements violates Article 46 and the reservation policy.
- Whether the creamy‑layer principle is applicable to SC/ST categories.
- Whether IIT Delhi’s regulations denying appeal in the first two years are constitutionally valid.
- Whether the institute is obligated to provide remedial facilities such as extra coaching, summer courses, or a slow‑track programme for reserved‑category students.
Legislation cited
Subjects
ReservationSC/STOBCIIT DelhiExpulsionRight to EducationArticle 46Creamy LayerSlow Track ProgrammeAcademic Credits
Judgment
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 258
A AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS.
~
v.
REGISTRAR llT DELHI AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 535 of 2008)
AUGUST 12, 2009
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. P. SATHASIVAM AND DR.
B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
Education - Reserved category students pursuing
c B. Tech. from /IT-Delhi expelled after 1 or 2 years as they
failed to achieve the required average credits - Writ petition
- Contention raised that the expelled students were being
denied the right to pursue their studies - Held: SC & ST are
separate class and creamy layer principle is not applicable
D to them - Socially and economically backward categories are r
to be taken care of at every stage even in specialized
institutions like I/Ts - Petitioners entitled to one more
opportunity - Respondent-institute directed to consider their
case afresh taking note of special features applicable to
E reserved categories-. Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.46.
Certain reserved category students pu~suing B.Tech.
from UT-Delhi were expelled after 1 'or 2 years as they
failed to achieve the required average credits. They filed .
writ petition contending that the respondent-institute was
F denying them the right to pursue their studies on ground
of poor performance.
The grievance of the petitioners was that inspite of
providing reservation in higher education like Medical
G and Engineering streams, no coaching or any other
facilities are provided to SCISTIOBC candidates to enable
them to compete with other general category students, ~
as a result of which, more than 90% SCISTIOBC students
are dropped out from these higher courses in first year
H 258
AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR llT 259
DELHI AND ANR.
or second year and as a result a number of reserved A
seats in higher courses are lying vacant and unfilled.
They also prayed for appropriate directions to the
respondent-institute to allow the petitioners to pursue
their studies pursuant to the admissions granted to them
on the basis of their respective merits. 8
Disposing of the Writ Petitions, the Court
I
~ HELD:1.1. Though the petitioners were not able to
secure the required credits as against the stipulated
minimum requirement for continuation of their studies, it c
is relevant to mention that all the petitioners had joined
the Institute after clearing All India Joint Entrance
Examination conducted jointly for all the llTs. It shows
that they were successful in securing the minimum cut-
--i off marks earmarked for the SC/ST categories. In such D
circumstances, it cannot be claimed that all these
students are not fit to be admitted in llT. Also the fact
remains that no special or extra coaching or any other
facilities were provided to these candidates in these
~
higher courses. [Para 16] [268-A-C] E
1.2. If one analy.zes the credits secured by the
petitioners with a requirement of minimum credits in the
first two years by permitting them to avail summer course
' and by conducting extra/additional coaching or training
including English subject, it would be possible for them F
to cross the minimum required credits to attend third year
and so on. Though the first respondent has specifically
denied that there is any discrimination· on the basis of
caste or any complaint was made to the appropriate
authority, the fact remains that additional/extra efforts G
were not fully afforded to these students in order to
>-- compete with the general category students and also
secure the minimum required credits in first and second
year. [Para 21] [272-8-D]
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 1.3. In view of the instances pointed out before this
Court, it is clear that the petitioners were not fully
responsible for their expulsion but at the same time, llT-
De I hi in order to maintain and continue their high
standards of education, implemented certain aspects
B which were helpful to the petitioners. But the fact remains
that inspite of such efforts, unfortunately, these
petitioners were not able to secure the minimum grades.
It is not in dispute that SC and ST are separate class by
themselves and the creamy layer principle is not
c applicable to them. Article 46 of the Constitution enjoins
upon the State to promote with special care the
educational and economic interests of the weaker
sections of the people and protect them from social
injustice and all forms of exploitation. These socially and
economically backward categories are to be taken care
0
of at every stage even in the specialized institutions like
llTs. They must take all endeavour by providing additional
coaching and bring them up at par with general category ,•
r-
students. [Para 25 and 26] (273-G-H; 274-A-C]
E 1.4. Considering the various aspects including the
fact that (a) appeal provision is available from third year
and there is no such facility for the first and second year;
(b) duration of study is extended by spreading over up
to eight years; (c) absence of slow paced course; (d)
F failu.r:.e to accommodate the petitioners in the summer
course in spite of order of this Court; (e) even candidates
who secured lesser grade than the minimum were
allowed to go to next academic session by allowing their
appeals (authorities are not consistent in considering
G ,similarly placed candidates); (f) out of nine students as
on date three were not interested and six persons alone
want to continue their course, this Court is of the view -'t
that ends of justice would be fully met by giving one more
opportunity to them. Accordingly, the first respondent is
H
AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR llT 261
DELHI AND ANR.
directed to consider their case afresh in the light of the A
~ various aspects mentioned above and in view of the
peculiar tac.ts, re-apprise their performance taking note
of special features available/applicable to these reserved
categories and take a decision one way or the other. It is
made clear that the first respondent llT-Delhi is free to B
pass appropriate orders by considering all the aspects
mentioned above including the policy of the Government
of India in providing reservation to bring them in the
mainstream along with others. (Para 27] [274-0-H; 275-A]
Ashok Kµmar Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 6 C
sec 1, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
(2008) 6 sec 1 relied on Para 26
D
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
535 of 2008.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
WITH
E
I.A. No. 4 in WP (C) Nos. 535 of 2008,
WP (C) Nos. 10 of 2009, and Conmt. Pet. (C) 145 of 2009 in
WP (C) No. 535 of 2008. F
Dinesh Kumar Garg, V.K. Biju, Dr. Bheem Pratap Singh,
Ritu Puri, Vijay Pratap Singh for the Appellants.
P.P. Rao, Abhinav Mukerji, Puroshottam, Utsav Sidhu for
the Respondents. G
The Judgment of the.Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Avinash Singh Bagri and five
others have filed Writ Petition (C) No. 535 of 2008 in this Court
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A under Article 32 of the Constitution of India airing their grievance
that most of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students ...
who have been given admission in llT-Delhi are being denied
the right to pursue their studies by the respondent-Institution on
the ground of poor performance and such students are being
B expelled and their admissions are being cancelled after one
year or two yeafs.
2. Ravindra Kumar Ravi and two others who have been
similarly placed and expelled by llT-Delhi by similar orders
dated 21.05.2008 and 02.06.2008 filed a separate writ petition,
c i.e., Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of 2009 highlighting their similar
grievance before this Court.
3. The above-said petitioners belong to reserved
categories (SC/ST/OBC). They were the students of llT-Delhi
D and pursuing the B.Tech. Course. They got admission in llT
Delhi through All India Joint Entrance Test in the year 2004-2005.
These petitioners have been expelled from the B.Tech Course
as they could not make the required average credits in their
second yeat
E
4. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of providing
reservation in higher education like Medical and Engineering
streams, no coaching or any other facilities are provided to SC/ ~·-
ST/OBC candidates to enable them to compete with other ).
general category students, as a result of which, more than 90%
F SC/ST/OBC students are dropped out from these higher
courses in first year or second year. As a result of which the
reserved seats in higher courses are lying vacant and unfilled.
In the year 2008, about 85% reserved seats remained unfilled
in llTs. For the last ten years, in the Courses at llTs, about 90%
G SC/ST/OBC students are either dropped out or were declared ,
fail in the first year or in the second year. The reservation made
by the Central Government/State Governments becomes ~
redundant as no infrastructure is provided to SC/ST/OBC
H
AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR llT 263
DELHI AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
candidates to enable them to acquire bench marks. The A
.J duration of B.Tech Course is 4-5 years which is divided into 8/
10 semesters depending upon the stream. The said durations
are extendable for a further period of two more years to enable
the students to pass out the course.
B
5. The academic performance of a student is monitored
at the end of each semester by the Standing Review Committee
(SRC) of the Senate. At the end of each semester, if a student
fails to satisfy the minimum academic criteria laid down for
continuation as a student, the SRC would recommend the
termination of registration of the student. According to the c
criteria, a student in general category must secure at least 20
credits and a student in SC/ST/OBC category must secure at
least 16 credits at the end of the 2nd semester failing which
his/her registration would be terminated. In the second year, a
i student in general category must secure at least 50 credits D
while SC/ST/OBC category student must secure 46 credits at
the end of 4th semester failing which his/her registration would
be terminated. A student's registration may be terminated at
the end of the 3rd year, 4th year or 5th year if he/she fails to
earn at least 84, 120 or 156 credits respectively. E
6. Unlike in Delhi, in the other llTs like Kharagpur,
Bombay, Chennai, GLiwahati and Roorkee, if a student fails to
achieve the required average credits in the first year or second
year, he/she is not expelled from the institute. For such students,
F
there is a programme known as "Slow Track Programme". If a
student clears a subject, he is awarded with full credits,
assigned to the subject. Besides, the student is also awarded
with marks for each subject according to the method mentioned
in the guidelines issued by the concerned llTs. Each student is
also awarded with a grading. Apart from this, every student is G
also awarded with Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA)
... and at the end of the 4/5 years course before granting the
degree of B.Tech, Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA)
is awarded to every student. The determination of passing
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A marks is left to the discretion of the concerned Professor. In
llT-Delhi, there is no such "Slow Track Programme" for the ~
students who failed to achieve the required credits in the first
and second year. Such students in other llTs are properly
advised by the Standing Review Committee (SRC) duly
B constituted by the concerned llT institute. Though, such SRC is
in existence at llT-Delhi, the said SRC is biased and does not
extend any help to the reserved category students.
7. In all the llTs except Delhi, the students are all9wed to ~
take up summer courses/examinations for making up any
I"
v shortfall in their average credits. However, in llT-Delhi, students
of second year who fail to make up the required average
credits, are not allowed to take up summer courses/
examinations and they are expelled. As per the guidelines of
I IT-Delhi, minimum 75% attendance is required for each subject
D and if a student fails to make 75% attendance in a subject, he , 't
is not allowed to take up examination in that subject.
8. Apart from the above, the petitioners highlighted their
individual grievance. the method of treatment and the
discrimination being followed by llT-Del~i in respect of SC/ST/
E
OBC students. By proceedings dated 21.05.2008 and
02.06.2008 of the Deputy Registrar, llT-De!hi, these petitioners
were expelled and their names were struck off from the roll of
the institution. ~
F 9. In these circumstances, the petitioners in both the
petitions approached this Court for quashing of the
proceedings of the first respondent-Institution dated 21.05.2008
and 02.06.2008. They also prayed for appropriate directions
to the I IT-Delhi-first respondent to allow the petitioners to
G pursue their studies pursuant to the admissions granted to them
on the basis of their respective merits.
~
10. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, on behalf
of the llT Delhi, Deputy Registrar (Legal), has filed a counter
H
AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR llT 265
DELHI AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
' affidavit highlighting their stand wherein it is stated that the
Indian Institutes of Technology are institutions of national
A
importance established through an Act of Parliament, i.e., The
Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. llT-Delhi is one of the seven
Institutes of Technology created as centres of excellence for
higher training, research and development in science, B
engineering and technology in India.
~
11. Petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 535 of 2008 had
joined the respondent-Institution in the academic.year 2006-07
and 2007-08 (Petitioner Nos. 1-4 in the year 2006-07 and
Petitioner Nos. 5-6 in the year 2007-08) after clearing the All
c
India Joint Entrance Examination for all the llTs in the years.
2006 and 2007. It is stated that in llT-Delhi for evaluating the
performance of a student, a "credit system" of evaluation is
-..
followed. Each candidate undertaking these highly professional
courses are required to secure the minimum prescribed credits D
in each year and a particular prescribed total number of credits
towards the end of the courses. If any candidate fails to secure
the minimum number of credits at the end of each academic
year, it would not be possible for any such candidate to secure
the minimum prescribed total number of credits towards the end E
of the course. In these circumstances, the admission of the
candidate is terminated as per the norms laid down by the
\
Institute. Clause 2.3 of the prospectus for the academic year
2006-07 which was issued to the petitioners upon admission
into llT-Delhi specifies the "credit system" followed at the F
respondent Institute. The academic performance of a student
is monitored at the end of each Semester by the Standing
Review Committee (SRC) of the Senate. At the end of each
Semester, the SRC identifies students who do not meet the
required criteria i.e., if a student's cumulative earned credits G
,l_
fall below 16 times the number of regular Semesters spent by
the student at llT Delhi or his/her CGPA falls to 4.75 or less.
12. For a SC/ST/OBC student, the average credits
required in order to complete the course is lower than a general
H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
)
A category student. A student of reserved category has to secure
only 46 credits as against a general category student who has
to secure at least 50 credits in order to avoid termination at
the end of 2nd semester of the 2nd year. The "Prospectus" and
"Courses of Study" booklets carry the rules and regulations by
B which student of that particular year will be governed/assessed.
Each student of the institute is attached to a Course Advisor,
a faculty member of the department to which the student is
admitted. The cour§e adviser helps the student to plan his
curriculum besides looking after his general welfare. The
c academic performance of each student is monitored by the
"Standing Review Committee" (SRC) and the "Departmental
Monitoring Committee" (DMC) constituted by the Senate of the
Institute.
13. In addition to the general guidelines, procedure, rules
D and regulations, the deponent of the affidavit has also
highlighted the performance of each petitioner and the steps
taken by llT. He has also reiterated the orders passed by
various High Courts and by this Court in maintaining standard
and discipline in these institutions. A similar counter affidavit
E has been filed in Writ Petition (C) No.10 of 2009. We feel that
the same is not required to be reproduced.
14. We have heard Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior
F counsel for the first respondent - llT-Delhi in both the writ
petitions. ,,
15. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for
the IIT-Delhi, by taking us through factual details mentioned in
l.A.No.4 of 2009, submitted that all the six petitioners in Writ
G Petition (C) No. 535 of 2008 were unable to secure the
~
minimum credits in spite of providing additional opportunities.
He pointed out that petitioner No.1 in W.P.(C) No. 535/2008
was admitted in the Institute in the academic year 2006-07
through the All India Joint Entrance Examination conducted
H
AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR llT 267
DELHI AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
jointly by all IITs. At the end of the 1st Semester of the 1st year, A
the performance of petitioner No.1 was not up to the mark as
he earned only 12 credits. His performance was considered
by the SRC in its meeting held in December 2006. Based on
the decision, a letter dated 23.01.2007 was sent to his parents
requesting them to advise their son to meet the Course Advisor 8
for further help. In the 2nd semester of the 1st year, after Minor-
1 examinations, the performance of the petitioner was again
· monitored by the SRC. As his performance was found to be
below average, by a letter dated 28.02.2007, he was asked to
meet DMC on 07.03.2007. Though petitioner No.1 was C
registered for the summer semester in 2007 in 3 subjects
wherein he could earn 12 credits, due to the poor academic
performance the petitioner was able to earn only 4 credits and
he was again advised to meet DMC. In the 4th Semester (2nd
Semester of 2nd year) because of his poor performance, he
was able to earn only 5 credits and was again advised to meet D
DMC on 26.02.2008. This time, he met DMC and after
discussing at length the difficulties experienced by the students,
the DMC advised him to devote more time to studies, attend
classes regularly and meet the course coordinator of the
concerned courses for getting assistance on difficulties E
experienced in the specific course. He was also I
advised to
meet the SC/ST adviser. At the end of the 4th Semester (2nd
year, 2nd semester) the SRC in its meeting held on 20.05.2008
monitored the performance of petitioner No. 1 with other
students and decided that as per the Institute regulations "the F
students who had earned credits less than the minimum
stipulated requirement for continuation of registration be
terminated from the Institute." The SRC also noted that for a
termination at the end of 1st or 2nd year, an appeal is not
allowed as per the Regulations. At the end of the 2nd year, 2nd G
semester, petitioner No.1 earned only 32 credits as against the
stipulated minimum requirement for continuation of 46 credits
for students belonging to SC/ST category. In the same way, Mr.
P.P. Rao pointed out the performance appraisal of other
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A petitioners. -,
16. It is true that the petitioners were not able to secure
the required credits as against the stipulated minimum
requirement for continuation of their studies. It is relevant to
mention that admittedly all these petitioners had joined the
B Institute in the academic years 2006-07 and 2007-08 after
clearing All India Joint Entrance Examination conducted jointly
for all the llTs in the years 2006 and 2007. It shows that they
were successful in securing the minimum cut-off marks
earmarked for the SC/ST categories. In such circ·umstances,
C it cannot be claimed that all these students are not fit to be
admitted in llT. Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners strenuously submitted that there is no use in
providing reservation in higher education/higher courses in llT,
Medical and Engineering streams when no extra facilities are
D provided to SC/ST/OBC candidates to enable them to
compete with other general category students.· He also
contended that no extra coaching or facilities are provided to
them in these higher courses as a result of which more than
90% of SC/ST/OBC students are dropped out from these
E higher courses in the 1st year or 2nd year and as a result, the
reserved seats in higher courses are lying vacant and unfilled.
He further contended that even in the current year, about 85%
reserved seats remained unfilled in llTs. Though Mr. Rao; by
placing the materials pointed out that these students and other
F similarly placed students were given proper advise, warning,
intimation to the parents permitting them to interact with the
professors etc., the fact remains that no special or extra
coaching or any other facilities were provided to these
candidates in these higher courses. It is pointed out that though
G the duration of B.Tech Course is 4/5 years which is divided in
8/10 semesters depending upon the stream, the said durations ·
are extendable for a further period of two years to enable the
. students to pass out B.Tech course. We have already pointed
out that in !IT-Delhi, the required average credits for general
H category students in the first year are 20 credits and for
AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR llT 269
DELHI AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
-t
reserved category students are 16 for their promotion in the A
second year. If a student does not succeed .in getting required
average credits, he is expelled from the Institute. Similarly, in
the second year, general category students require an average
of 50 credits, while reserved category students require an
average of 46 credits. If a student fails in achieving the required B
credits in llT-Delhi, such student is expelled from the Institute .
.A By placing relevant materials, Mr. Garg pointed out that unlike
Delhi in other llT Institutes like Kharagpur, Bombay, Chennai,
- -· Guwahat~ and Roorkee, if a student fails to achieve required
average credits in the first year or second year, he_is not c
expelled from the Institute. For such students, there is a
programme known as "Slow Track Programme" (STP). The
relevant provision of STP~ as provided under B.Tech/Dual \
.., Degree/M.Sc. rules of llT, Bombay reads thus:
"8.4 Slow Track Option. D
For students with up to four backlogs (FR/XX) at the
end of first and second years, a separate slow-track
pmgramme should be worked out by the faculty adviser
and got approved by UGAPEC, to enable him/her to E
complete the degree requirements over a longer-than-
normal duration (considering the maximum duration
indicated in 8.5). The performance of such students should
be monitored on a semesterly basis and requisite
corrections in .the programme as warranted should be F
made from time to time.
Students having FR/XX grades (in up to four courses)
are advised to opt for slow track option in their own interest,
in consultation with their faculty advisers. Otherwise, they
will be at risk of early termination if more backlogs are G
accumulated as per rule 8.7.
8.5 Maximum period for Completion of Programme
In any case, a student should fulfill the requirements for his/ H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A her respective degree within the maximum period
specified for e~ch degree as given below, including
withdrawal in exceptional circumstances, failing which his/
her case will be referred to the Senate for dismissal:-
B. Tech. programme: Six years
B
M.Sc. 2 Yr Programme: Three years
M.Sc. 5 Yr. Programme: Seven years
Dua~ Degree Programme: Seven years"
c
It is pointed out that if a student clears a subject/course, he is
awarded with full credits, assigned to the subject/course.
Besides, the student is also awarded with marks for each
subject/course according to the method mentioned in ¥
D guidelines, issued by the concerned llTs. Each stud-E?nt is also ,
awarded with a grading. Apart from this, every student is also
awarded with Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) and at
the end of 4 years/5 years course, before granting degree of
B.Tech, Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA), is awarded
E to every student.
17. Another grievance of the petitioners is that the awarding
of passing marks is left to the discretion of the concerned
professor. For example, it is for the concerned professor to
determine the passing marks from 30% to 50% according to
F
his discretion. If a student gets passing marks decided by the
concerned professor, such student is awarded with full credits
as has been assigned to the concerned course/courses.
.
18. It is also highlighted that the said programme which is
G in existence in other llT Institutes except Delhi has been
introduced for the purpose of making students to cover up their l,
deficiencies or to make up their required credits. There is no
dispute that in llT-Delhi, there is no such Slow Track Programme
for the students who failed to achieve the required credits in
H
AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR llT 271
DELHI AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
,. the first year and second year. Such students in other Ills are A
being properly advised by the Standing Review Committee
(SRC) constituted by the concerned Ills.
19. Another difficulty pointed out by the petitioners is that
though there is some concession in getting credits in the first
B
and second year for reserved category students admittedly for
third year, both general and reserved category students have
to secure 84 credits in order to get promotion. It is also brought
to our notice that in IIT-Delhi if a student after third year could
not make the required average credits, there is a provision of
making an appeal to the Dean of Under Graduate Students
c
(UGS). It is the discretion of the Dean to allow such students
to take up the fourth year course or not. It is also highlighted
that most of the students are being allowed to take up the fourth
i
year course and ultimat~ly students can complete their B.lech
course within a maximum period of 617 years (now the same D
is increased to 8 years).
......._
20. Mr. Garg next pointed out that in all llT's except Delhi,
- the students are allowed to take up summer course/
examinations for making up for shortfall in their average credits. E
In llT-Delhi, students of the second year who fail to make up
the required average credits are not allowed to take up summer
-4 course/examinations and they are being expelled. It is the
grievance of the petitioners that though by our order dated
05.01.2009, we directed the first respondent-Registrar, llT-Delhi F
to allow the petitioners to attend classes for the session 2008-
09 subject to further orders of this court and payment of fees,
if any. It is pointed out that, these petitioners were not allowed
to take up the summer course. It is not in dispute that first of
all, these petitioners were not permitted to attend the summer
G
1. course and secondly, by attending the summer course, each
.. student gets 12 grades. Though llT-Delhi has permitted these
petitioners to attend their classes for the session 2008-09, they
were not allowed to avail the summer course which deprived
them in getting 12 grades. Had these petitioners been allowed
~-
H
""
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
-t
A to participate in the summer course, it could be possible for
them to secure reasonable grades which ultimately could push
' their perforryiance above the cut-off marks. There is no plausible
explanation for not permitting them to avail the summer course.
21. If we analyze the credits secured by these petitioners
8
with a requirement of minimum credits in the first two years by
permitting them to avail summer course and by conducting
extra/additional coaching or training including English subject,
it would be possible for them to cross the minimum required
credits to attend third year and so on. Though the first
c respondent has specifically denied that there is no
discrimination on the basis of caste or any complaint was made
to the appropriate authority, the fact remains that additional/extra
efforts were not fully afforded to these students in order to 'r
compete With the general category students and also secure
D the minimum required credits in first and second year.
22. The information furnished by the Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of
~
Higher Technical Education, Section-I, Shastri Bhawan, New
E Delhi in their letter dated 16.12.2008 (01.01.2009) addressed
to one of the petitioners shows that the following information
for the year 2008 is relevant:- ._
llTDelhi ITI Kharagpur llT Guwahati llT Kanpur
No. of expelled
F
students involved 20 02 01 01
Action taken by Being Request/ Director, II llT Kanpur
the Ministry of examinE::d Appeal Guwahati has been
HRD could not has been requested to
be agreed requested give their
G to. Students to reconsider comments.
have been the expulsion
informed of the
accordingly. student.
H
AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR llT 273
DELHI AND ANR. [P. s·ATHASIVAM, J.J
The above particulars are not a valid ground to accept the claim A
+ of the petitioners, however, the fact remains that only at llT-
Delhi, 20 students were expelled in the year 2008, though
similar syllabus are being followed in other llTs, the expulsion
is minimal.
8
23. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
brought to our notice that even while considering the appeal by
these expelled students, the authority concerned, particularly for
the year 2008 has not followed a uniform standard. While
strengthening the above contention, Mr. Garg has pointed out C
the case of the following two candidates:-
S. Name Entry No. Cat. Ear- EC Remarks
No. ned
19 Shyamded Ranjan 2004ME10525 SC 49.0 180 Appeal Allowed
20 Alok Singh Maher 2005CS50207 SC 51.0 218 Appeal Allowed D
Though these two students earned credits less than the
required, their appeals were allowed by the competent authority.
This shows that they are not consistent with these procedures
and in certain circumstances these conditions are being varied E
and the students who secured less than the minimum required
credits are allowed to continue their studies.
24. It is pointed out that though one of the petitioners
produced medical certificate for his illness, according to the F
counsel for the petitioners, the same was not properly
appreciated and considered.
25. We have mentioned certain instances to show that
these petitioners were not fully responsible for their expulsion
but at the same time we are conscious of the fact that !IT-Delhi G
in order to maintain and continue their high standards of
.>-- education, implemented certain aspects which were helpful to
the petitioners. But the fact remains that in spite of such efforts,
unfortunately, these petitioners were not able to secure the
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A minimum grades.
-t
26. It is not in dispute that SC and ST are separate class
by themselves and the creamy layer principle is not applicable
to them. Article 46 of the Constitution of India enjoins upon the
State to promote with special care the educational and
B
economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and
protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
These socially and economically backward categories are to
be taken care of at every stage even in the specialized
institutions like Ills. They must take all endeavour by providing
c additional coaching and bring them up at par with general
category students. All these principles have been reiterated by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur
vs. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 6 SCC 1.
D 27. Considering the various aspects including the fact that y
(a) appeal provision is available from third year and no such
facility for the first and second year; (b) duration of study is now
extended by spreading over up to eight years; (c) absence of
slow paced course; (d-) failure to accommodate these ·
E petitioners in the summer course in spite of order of this Court;
~
(e) even candidates who secured lesser grade than the
minimum were allowed to go to next academic· session by
allowing their appeals (authorities are not consistent in
considering similarly placed candidates); (f) out of nine students ~
F as on date three were not interested and six persons alone
want to continue their course, we are of the view that ends of
justice would be fully met by giving one more opportunity to
them. Accordingly, we direct the first respondent to consider
their case afresh in the light of the various aspects mentioned
above and in view of the peculiar tacts, re-apprise their
G
performance taking note of special features available/applicable
to these reserved categories and take a decision one way or ,..._
the other within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt ~-·
of copy of this judgment. We make it clear that the first
respondent llT-Delhi is free to pass appropriate orders by
H
AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR llT 275
DELHI AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
considering all the aspects mentioned above including the A
policy of the Government of India in providing reservation to
bring them in the mainstream along with oth£rs.
28. With the above direction; both the writ petitions are
disposed of. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, no
8
orders are required in I.A. No. 4 of 2009 and Contempt Petition
(C) No. 145 of 2009. No costs.
B.B.B. Writ Petitions disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Reservation"Sign in to search