Attitude of JNU woefully anachronistic: Delhi HC restores grades, credits obtained by visually impaired student

Calling the attitude of the Jawaharlal University (JNU) administration “woefully anachronistic”, the Delhi High Court has set aside the University’s decision refusing to restore the original grades and the credits obtained by an “academically gifted” visually impaired student..The University had replaced the student’s original grades and credits in four courses with an “F” as he decided to not appear in the repeat examination for the courses after being informed that his registration for the same would not be accepted..While acknowledging that the physically challenged people were overcoming challenges thrown in their way and also excelling, a Single Judge Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar remarked,.“The stage of integration of such persons into the mainstream of society, is long past; it only remains, now, for us to recognise that such persons are a part of our society, and one that is essential, and inalienable. Visual impairment, particularly, is, ever so often, conquered, without allowing it to stand in the way of the “impaired” from scaling the heights of her, or his, chosen profession. A notable example of such an achiever is available, with us, even in this very Court.”.The petitioner, Ghalib Zayed who suffers from 100% blindness in his right eye and 50% blindness in his left eye, aspired to pursue the M.Phil. programme with JNU..The petitioner had completed the first year of his BA Examination from the Maulana Mazharul Haque Arabic & Persian University with 52.4% marks. Thereafter, there was a hiatus in his studies due to his physical limitations. In the monsoon semester of 2014, the petitioner migrated to the BA (Hons.) (Persian) programme conducted as part of the integrated five-year M.A. programme, by the JNU..After the petitioner successfully cleared the first six semesters, he started pursuing the remainder of semesters for the two-year M.A. programme..On January 5, 2018, while the results of the third-semester examination were awaited, the petitioner registered himself for the fourth and final semester of the M.A. course..Unaware of Clause 7.3(b) of Ordinance 15(A) which governed the award of M.A./M.Sc. degrees, petitioner also applied for repeating four courses of his second semester in order to improve his performance..As per the Clause, a student could apply only for repeating two of the papers of his second semester, i.e., up to a maximum of eight credits..The petitioner’s Registration Form was filled up by the Section Officer of the Centre for Persian & Central Asian Studies (CPCAS) of the JNU as he was visually impaired. The Form was approved and signed by the Chairman of the CPCAS who forwarded it to the Controller of Examination and the same was also accepted..When the petitioner became aware of the Rule, he contacted the Section Officer who had filled in the registration form. The petitioner was then informed that the form was improperly filed as a student was not permitted to appear for tour repeat examinations and would thus be rejected..Therefore, the petitioner decided to stick to the grades and credits obtained by him in the second-semester examination and chose to not appear in the repeat examination..In July 2018, when the result was announced, the petitioner was awarded an “F” for all the four repeat courses of his second semester as he had failed to appear for them..As a result, although the petitioner appeared in all the 17 courses of his M.A. programme, he was given only 52 credits instead of 68 since he was deemed to have appeared only in 13 courses..Since he failed to secure a minimum of 64 credits, he was also deemed ineligible for applying for a Mphil..Aggrieved by the result, the petitioner wrote to several authorities, requesting that his registration for repeating the papers of the second semester be canceled and the grades and credit points originally awarded to him be taken into account..The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction..The petitioner argued that since he could not have possibly re-appeared in the four courses of his second semester in view of the Rule, his failure to so reappear would not result in an “F” due to the forfeiture of the credits earlier earned by him..The JNU administration argued that by applying for permission to repeat the four courses, the petitioner had surrendered his earlier credits, as well as the grades. As a result, when he failed to appear for the repeat examination, he was not entitled to any credits or any grade, against the said four courses..After hearing the parties, the Court opined that if the petitioner inadvertently or erroneously applied for permission to re-appear in all the four courses earlier undertaken by him, it was the responsibility of the authorities including, inter alia, the Chairperson of the CPCAS, to decide the two courses for which he could be permitted to re-attempt..In registering the petitioner, for re-attempting all the four courses of his second semester, the authorities in the CPCAS acted in a clearly illegal manner, the Court said..The Court added that the JNU administration undertook a course of action which was not open to them and thus the petitioner could not be made to suffer for not following their chosen path by appearing in repeat examination of all the four courses..It was further added that the surrender of the grades and the credits originally obtained by the petitioner was consequential on him being legally permitted to repeat the four courses..The Court thus concluded that the “artificial” reduction in the grades and credits secured by the petitioner could not be sustained..Before parting, the Court noted the accomplishments of the “academically gifted” petitioner..“..the petitioner is academically gifted, and has, by dint of perseverance and hard work, overcome his physical limitations.”.It further added,.“The word “handicapped” has, with the passage of time, revealed itself to have been a malapropism all along, and persons who suffer from unfortunate physical limitations are now, more appropriately recognised as being merely “challenged”.”.The Court further added that every day it witnessed persons overcoming such challenges which are thrown in their way “by an unhappy providence” and excelling..It also remarked that the stage of integration of such persons into the mainstream of society was long past and it was only left for us to recognise that such persons were a part of our society and inalienable..The Court further remarked,.“In times such as these, therefore, the attitude, that the JNU has chosen to adopt, while dealing with the case of the petitioner, can only be characterised as woefully anachronistic.”.In view of the above, the Court restored the original grades and credits of the petitioner and set aside the rejection of the petitioner’s representation to JNU authorities seeking the same. The Court also said that it was refraining from awarding costs to the petitioner in view of the fact that JNU was an academic institution of excellence and repute..The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal with Advocates Vedanta Varma, Mannat Sandhu, and Akhil Kumar Gola..JNU was represented by Advocates Monika Arora, Harsh Ahuja, Kushal Kumar and Praveen Singh..Read the Judgement: