Action Contrary To Procedure Prescribed In Programme Manual: Gujarat High Court Quashes Expulsion Of 3 Students From IIM-Ahmedabad
The Gujarat High Court recently set aside an order passed by IIM-Ahmedabad expelling three students enrolled in Doctoral of Programme in Management course, holding that the action of the institution was not in consonance with the procedure prescribed in the programme manual.
The petitioners, who were selected for Doctoral of Programme in Management (DPM) at IIM Ahmedabad, had challenged a June 7 decision which held that they had not fulfilled the conditions for promotion from first year to the second year of 'Coursework' stage. Hence their candidature in the said course was withdrawn and the petitioners were expelled from the programme.
Each of the petitioners filed an individual appeal to the Director of IIM-Ahmedabad as per Clause 6.1(c) of the Manual of Policies and Procedure with regard to the Doctoral Programme in Management (DPM). Against rejection of their appeals the petitioners moved the high court.
Justice Nikhil S Kariel perused the DPM Manual and observed that the course was designed to ensure that students get multiple opportunities to pass the course.
"to this Court it would appear that the purpose of the Manual being to regulate the DPM programme yet, from the perspective of the students, one very important aspect which is too obvious to ignore being that the course is designed in such a manner to ensure that a student gets reasonable and multiple opportunities to clear the course. Further the DPM Executive Committee, the Student Evaluation Committee (SEC) being given the responsibility of reviewing the performance suggesting remedial measures or appropriate course of action and the Director of the Institute having the final authority in case of an appeal".
The court said that the underlying objective was that if a student is meritorious enough to get selected for course, then adequate opportunity should be given to the student to complete the course and idea was not to remove the student from the pogramme at the very first opportunity.
Referring to the clauses in the programme manual the court said that it appeared that while coursework stage would have to be completed in two years, if a student has obtained a F grade or a D grade–that is Fail grade or low fail grade in two courses worth more than two credits, then the student could at the recommendation of the instructor with approval of programme EC have the F grade cleared or overcome the shortfall in a particular manner.
The default provision was that the student would have to repeat the course in its subsequent offering for either clearing the fail grade or overcoming the shortfall by repeating the course in its subsequent offering.
Again an additional one year is provided for completing the 'coursework' stage that is two years being the normal duration and one additional year to clear the F grade or shortfall as the case may be.
"Again to emphasize it is observed by this Court that no part of the Manual envisages that a student could be directed to leave the programme upon the student not clearing the first year of Coursework...it would appear very clearly that the Manual does not envisage a student requiring to leave the Coursework stage upon non completion of the first and or second year as the case may be upon obtaining F grade or D grade and whereas the student would be entitled to one additional year to complete the coursework and only if the the student is not able to complete the coursework stage and get promoted at ACE (Area Comprehensive Examination) stage within the stipulated and extended time then the institution is empowered to ask the student to leave the programme," the court said.
The court thus held that, the action of the institution requiring the petitioners to leave the programme is not in consonance with the procedure prescribed in the Manual, and is therefore an "action without any authority of the law that is nonest and void ab intio".
Setting aside the expulsion the court allowed the petitions.
At this stage the counsel for the institution sought a stay of four weeks of the court's decision for the respondent-Institution to take appropriate steps, adding that the petitioners shall not be evicted from their accommodation in the institution during this duration.
Case title: ABHILASHA ASHOK KUMAR v/s INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & ORS and Batch
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8459 of 2025 and connected petitions
Counsel for the petitioners: Advocates AJ Yagnik, Biju A Nair
Counsel for respondent: Advocates Megha Jani, Harsheel D Shukla