# UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE v. GOPAL GOWDA AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1965] 3 S.C.R. 229
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-01-31
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLA\TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 565566 of 1963
- **Bench:** K. SuBBA RAO, J. C. Shah, R. S. BACHAWAi.r
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/university-of-mysore-v-gopal-gowda-and-another-3400
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Mysore University Act, 1956, ss. 22, 23, 43-Power to make regulations for "maintenance of standards.,'-Scope of.
Under Sections 22, 23, and 43 of the Mysore University Act, the
Academic Council of the University \\i.,as empowered, inter alia, to
control and operate the teaching, courses of study, to secure maintenance of standards, etc., and to make necessary regulations including
those relating to examinations, and conditions on which student~
may be admitted to examinations, degrees, diplomas, etc.
In exercise of these powers, the Academio Council made certain
Regulations relating to the grant of a degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and by clause 3(c: of these Regulations, it was provided
that no candidate who failed an examination four times, would be
permitted to continue the course.
The respondents were declared unsuccessful in four successive
First Year Course examinations and the Controller of Examinations
informed each respondent that he had lost their right to continue
studying for the degree. The respondents thereupon filed petition~
in the High Court, praying for the issue of writs quashing the orders
communicated to them and directing the University to permit them
to appear for the subsequent examinations and to continue their
studies.
The High Court held that Regulation 3(c) was beyond the competence of the Academic Council and the University.
On appeal to this Court:
HELD: that power to maintain standards in the course of studies
confers authority not merely to presc<ribe minimum qualifications for
admission, courses of study, minimum attendance at an institution
which may qualify the student for admission to the examination, etc.,
but also authority to refuse to
grant a degree, diploma, or othe11
academic distinction to students who fail at the final examination
and to direct that a student, who is proved not to have the ability
or the aptitude to complete the course within a reasonable time, 1o
discontinue the course.
There is no warrant for restricting the expression "maintenance
of standards" only to matters such as minimum attendance, Ieng!~
of the course and prescription of minimum academic attainments.
[233F-H]
CIVIL APPELLA\TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos.
565566 of 1963.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
January 31, 1962 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions
Nos. 940 and 1056 of 1961.
G. S. Pathak and M /s. Rajinder Narain and Co. for tbe appellants.
R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.

## Text

A
B
0
D
•
F
&
B
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
V.
GOPAL GOWDA AND ANOTHER
March 2. 1965
229
[K. SuBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAi.r, JJ.J
Mysore University Act, 1956, ss. 22, 23, 43-Power to make regulations for "maintenance of standards.,'-Scope of.
Under Sections 22, 23, and 43 of the Mysore University Act, the
Academic Council of the University \\i.,as empowered, inter alia, to
control and operate the teaching, courses of study, to secure maintenance of standards, etc., and to make necessary regulations including
those relating to examinations, and conditions on which student~
may be admitted to examinations, degrees, diplomas, etc.
In exercise of these powers, the Academio Council made certain
Regulations relating to the grant of a degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and by clause 3(c: of these Regulations, it was provided
that no candidate who failed an examination four times, would be
permitted to continue the course.
The respondents were declared unsuccessful in four successive
First Year Course examinations and the Controller of Examinations
informed each respondent that he had lost their right to continue
studying for the degree. The respondents thereupon filed petition~
in the High Court, praying for the issue of writs quashing the orders
communicated to them and directing the University to permit them
to appear for the subsequent examinations and to continue their
studies.
The High Court held that Regulation 3(c) was beyond the competence of the Academic Council and the University.
On appeal to this Court:
HELD: that power to maintain standards in the course of studies
confers authority not merely to presc<ribe minimum qualifications for
admission, courses of study, minimum attendance at an institution
which may qualify the student for admission to the examination, etc.,
but also authority to refuse to
grant a degree, diploma, or othe11
academic distinction to students who fail at the final examination
and to direct that a student, who is proved not to have the ability
or the aptitude to complete the course within a reasonable time, 1o
discontinue the course.
There is no warrant for restricting the expression "maintenance
of standards" only to matters such as minimum attendance, Ieng!~
of the course and prescription of minimum academic attainments.
[233F-H]
CIVIL APPELLA\TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos.
565566 of 1963.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
January 31, 1962 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions
Nos. 940 and 1056 of 1961.
G. S. Pathak and M /s. Rajinder Narain and Co. for tbe appellants.
R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. These appeals raise the question whether the Academic Council of the Mysore University was competent in exercise
230
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(l965] 3 S.C.R.
of the powers conferred by ss. 22, 23 and 43 of the Mysore University
A
Act 23 of 1956 to frame cl. 3(c)· of the Regulations relating to the
grant of the degree for Bachelor of Veterinary Science (B.V.Sc.).
The Mysore University Act 23 of 1956-hereinafter referred to as
'the Act'-was enacted to provide for the reorganisation of the
University of Mysore and other incidental matters. The powers of
the University are described in s. 4. Section 21 provides for the conB
stitution of the Academic Council-which is one of the authorities
of the University designated under s. 13-and s: 22 sets out the
powers of the Academic Council. It provides:
"The Academic Council shall, subject to the provisions
of this Act, have the control and general regulation of
C
teaching; courses of studie.s to be pursued, and maintenance of the standards thereof and shall exercise such other
powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed."
By s. 23 other powers of the Academic Council are prescribed.
Insofar as it is material, the section provides:
·
D
"In particular anj without prejudice to the generality
of the powers specified in section 22, the Academic
Council shall have, subject to the previsions of this Act,
the following powers, namely:
(a)
(b)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(c) to make R~gulations relating to courses, schemes of
examinations and conditions on which students shall
E
be admitted to the examinations, degrees, diplomas, cer·
F
tificates ·and ether academic distinctions;"
Section 43 of the Act sets out the scope of the Regulations. It
enacts :
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Regulations
may provide for the exercise of all or any of the powers,
G
enumerated in "secticns 22 and 23 of this Act and for the
following matters, namely:
(i) the admission of students to the University;
Iii) the recognition of the examinations and degrees of other
Universities as equivalent to the examinations and
R
degrees of the University;
tiii) the University coJ'rses and examinations and the condit\ons on which students of the University and affiliated
colleges and ether Unive sity iiiStitutions shall be
admitted to examinations for the degrees, diplomas and
~ertificates of the University; and
A
B
c
I
D
E
F
G
H
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE V. GOPAL GOWDA (Shah, J.)
231
(iv) the granting of exemptions."
In exercise of the powers conferred by ss. 22, 23 and 43, the
Academic Council made Regulations relating to the grant of a
degree for Bachelor of Veterinary Science. Clause 3(c) of the Regu.
lations is as follows:
"No candidate who fails four times shall be permitted
to continue the course."
The Mysore Veterinary College, Hebbal, Bangalore, is one of tho
colleges affiliated to the University of Mysore for training students
for the degree course in Bachelor of Veterinary Science (B.V.Sc.).
These two appeals arise on facts which are closely parallel.
Gopala Gowda-respondent in C.A. No. 565 of 1963-was admitt·
ed in the year 1958 as a student in the First Year Course in the
Mysore Veterinary College. Gopala Gowda was declared unsuccess.
ful in four successive First Year Course examinations. The Con·
troller of Examinatiorn;, Mysore University, then informed Gopalai
Gowda by letter dated August 2, 1961 that he "had lost" his right
to continue studies for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science (B.V.Sc.)
course under Regulation 3(c) of the Regulations governing the
course of study framed by the University leading to the degree of
the Bachelor of Veterinary Science (B.V.Sc.). Gopala Gowda then
presented a petition in the High Court of Mysore praying that, for
reasons set out in his affidav·it, the High Court do issue a writ
quashing the order communicated by the Controller of Examina·
tions in his letter dated August 2, 1961 and do further direct the
University of Mysore and the Controller of Examinations to permit
him to appear for the subsequent examinations and to prosecute
his training for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science Course. The
other respondent Bheemappa Reddy had also failed to satisfy the
examiners in four successive First Year Course examinations com·
mencing from April 1959, and on being intimated by the Controller
of Examinations that he will not be permitted to continue his train·
ing for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science (B.V.Sc.) course under
Regulation 3(c), he filed a similar writ petition in the High Court.
The High Court of Mysore held that Regulation 3(c) of thci
Regulations governing the course of study leading to confermeni
of the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science of the Mysore
University could not be said "to subserve the purpose of maintain·
ing the standards mentioned in s. 22 of the Mysore University Act"
and on that account was beyond the competence of the Academic
Council or the University and those bodies had no power to prevent
Gopala Gowda and Bheemappa from prosecuting their studies and
from appearing at the subsequent examinations. With special leave,
the University of Mysore, the Controller of Examinations and the
Principal of the Mysore Veterinary College, have appealed.
In the view of the High Court, under s. 22 of the Act the
Academic Council could prescribe minimum qualifications for
!3!
SUPREME COURT REPOHTS
(J 965) 3 S.C.R.
•
ar:'.mission to a degree course in an affiliated college, and also could
prescPibe standards which qualify a candidate for admission to
the degree or academic distinction, but the Coundl had not the
power to prescribe a condition on the satisfaction of which a
student admitted to the· Course could prosecute his study in the
course to which he had been admitted. Power to frame Regulations
for "maintenance of standards" within the meaning of s. 22 and
vrescribing conditions on which a student shall be admitted to an
examination within the meaning of s. 23(3) (c) did not, in the opinion
of the High ·Court, import power to make Regulation preventing a
student admitted to a course from prosecuting his study, for the
only consequence of failure in an examination is that the student
does not qualify himself for admission to the degree sought by
him,'and the University would be entitled to withhold conferment
of the degree. but not to obstruct the prosecution of the course of
study. The expression "maintenance of standards" in the view of
the High Court could only take in considerations such as undergoing a course of study and keeping a prescribed minimum attendance to an institution maintained or recognised by the University,
but it does not and "cannot be taken to mean that by reason only
of the fact that a student has not attained the standard of knowledge or proficiency required for passing the examination within
that period, he can be said to be for all times incapable of attaining that standard." The High Court proceeded to observe "The
power to maintain certain standards before a degree or other
academic distinction is conferred upon a person involves the power
to withhold the conferment of that degree unless a person attains
the necessary standard, but it cannot either in logic or in justice
involve the power to refuse to permit a person to attain that
standard. That power can and should be exercised at the time of
admission into the course of study if the University is of the opinion
that the applicant for .admission into the course does not even
possess the minimum suitability for taking that course of study.
Once it admits him into the course of study, it must be held to
have entertained the opinion that he does have the minimum suitability to take that course which means that he has the capacity
by undergoing the course of study to attain the standard necessary for receiving the degree."
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the High
Court. The Academic Coundl is invested with the power of controiling and generally regulating teaching, courses of studies to be
pursued, and maintenance of the standards thereof, and for those
H
purposes the Academic Council is competent to make regulations,
amon_gst others, relating to the courses. schemes of examim,tions
and conditions on which students shall be· admitted to the ex;•minations, degrees, diplomas, certificates and· other 8Cademic' distinctions. The Acarlemic Council is thereby invested with power to co:itrol the entire academic life of the student from -the stage of
I
A
B
E
F
G
H
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE V, GOPAL GOWDA (Shah, J,)
admission to a course of study to the ultimate conferment of a.
degree or academic distinction. Admission to a course or branch ol
study depending upon possession of the minimum qualifications
prescribed does not divest the Academic Council of its control over
the academic career of the student, for the Council has for maintaining standards the power to prescribe schemes of examinations,
and also to prescribe conditions on which students shall be admitted
to the examinations. Power to prescribe conditions on which a
student may be admitted to the examinations, in our opinion, neces·
sarily implies the power to refuse to admit a student. in certain
contingencies, for the power to admit to an examination implies the
p0wer to weed out students who have on the application of a
reasonable test proved themselves to be unfit to continue the course
or prcsecute training in that course. If on account of general inaptitude for being trained in a course or on account of supervening
disability to prosecute a c9urse of study, a student admitted to that
course is found by the Academic Council to be unfit to prosecute
his training, it would, in our judgment, be within the power of the
Academic Council, in exercise of its authority to control and maintain standards, and also of its authority to prescribe conditions on
which students may be admitted to examinations, to direct that thei
student shall discontinue training in that course. And failure by
a student to quolify for promotion or degree in four examinations,
is certainly a reasonable test of such inaptitude or superver:ing disability. If after securing admission to an institution imparting
training for professional courses, a student may be held entitled to
continue indefinitely to attend the institution without ade,1uate
application and to continue to offer himself for successive examinations, a lowering of academic standards would inevitably result.
Power to maintain standards in the course of studies, in oμr judg·
ment, confers authority not merely to prescribe minimum qualifications for admission, courses of study, and minimum attendance a~
an institution which may qualify the student for admission to thel
examination, but also authority to refuse to grant a degree, diploma,
certificate or other academic distinction to students who fail to
satisfy the examiners at the final examination, and to direct that a
student who is proved not to have the ability or the aptitude to
complete the course within a reasonable time to discontinue the
course. There is no warrant for restricting the expression "maintenance of the standards" only to matters such as minimum
attendance, length of the course and prescription of minimum
academic attainments.
The High Court was therefore in error in holding that tho
Academic Council had no power to prescribe Regulation 3(c). We
are informed at the Bar, however, that since the High Court decided
the case on January 31, 1962, the two respondents were permitted
to continue their courses of study and they have appeared for the
subsequent examinations and they were declared to have duly
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1965) 3 B.C.B.
passed their second and third year examination and have been permitted to keep terms for the degree examination. Even though, the
view taken by the High Court was erroneous, we do not think,
having regard to the fact that the respondents were permitted to
continue their course of study, the University not having applied for
any interim orders pending disposal of these appeals, that any order
should be passed in these appeals so as to deprive .the respondents
of the training they have received.
.
These appeals are filed with special leave, add in the exceptional circumstances of the case, we do not think we would be
justified, merely because we disag1~e w;th the int~.prctatiun of the
High Court of the relevant regulation, in making an effective order
against the respondents so as to nullify the resul~~ declared by the
University concerning them in r•e3pect of the second and third yeur
exan1i11udons.
The appeals are therefore dismissed. There Will be no order as
to costs.
Appeals dismi.ised.
A
B
0