IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7981 of 2008(A)
1. KISHOR KUMAR P.G., AGED 25 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. MOHAMMED SUHAIL, AGED 24 YEARS,
3. MOHAMMED FAISAL M., AGED 24 YEARS,
4. MUKESH M., AGED 22 YEARS,
Vs
1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :17/06/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 7981 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 17th June, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have completed B.Tech degree course from
Government Engineering College, Kannur. They did not get pass
marks in some papers. In those subjects, their marks for internal
assessment were very low. As per the scheme of examinations of the
1st respondent- University, for the particular examination, no separate
minimum is prescribed either for internal examination or for external
examination. Total marks prescribed for internal examination is 50
and those for external examination is 100. But, a candidate for
passing the examination should score a minimum of 50% of the total
marks of 150. The petitioners requested for permitting them to
appear for improvement examination for the internal assessment
marks by undergoing the course for the subjects again. However,
since there were no clear cut guidelines in the matter issued by the
University, the request was not entertained and on some of the
petitioners approaching this Court, this Court by order dated 13-2-
2007 issued a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the prayer of
the petitioners in that writ petition. Accordingly, the Academic
Council of the University issued an order dated 9-11-2007 to the effect
that “students of B. Tech course of 2002 admission can improve their
internal assessment only by attending course/paper by registering in
the respective semester.” However, the college authorities did not
forward the application for improvement to the University for
registration on the reasoning that the University is proposing to issue
one more order on the subject. Thereafter, the University appears to
have issued another order clarifying that reappearance for
improvement of internal assessment marks is permitted only in the
case of subjects/papers for which a separate pass minimum is
prescribed for internal marks. The petitioners have altogether 59
W.P.C. No. 7981/2008. -: 2 :-
papers including laboratory works, out of which, there are no
University examinations for five subjects, namely, Seminar, Project,
Mini Project, 1st Lab and 2nd Lab. For the said five subjects, the
prescribed minimum marks for internal examination are 35 marks
out of 50. For the other 54 subjects, internal examination is a part of
the University examination. But no separate minimum marks are
prescribed for internal examination. Accordingly, the petitioners
were denied the right to improve their internal examination marks for
54 subjects, for which there is no prescribed minimum marks for
internal examination. It is under the above circumstances, the
petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P3 modified order as
illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
permit the petitioners for improving any of their internal
assessment marks from the whole subjects.
(iii) Declare that University has no right to deny the opportunity
of the petitioners to improve the internal assessment marks from
any of their subjects.”
2. The learned standing counsel for the University argued in
support of the orders of the University restricting the right to appear
for improvement examination for internal assessment only for those
subjects for which a separate minimum for a pass is prescribed for
internal examination.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. It is not disputed before me by the counsel for the University
that in respect of these 54 subjects, no separate minimum marks are
prescribed for a pass either in the internal examination or in the
external examination. Only minimum marks for the total of both
internal and external examinations put together are prescribed. It is
also not disputed before me that a candidate who wish to improve the
marks for the external examination can write the improvement
W.P.C. No. 7981/2008. -: 3 :-
examination. As such, there is no logic in the orders of the University,
whereby the facility for appearance in improvement examination for
internal examination is restricted to only those subjects for which
separate minimum marks are prescribed for internal examination.
Even otherwise, there is no logic in that prescription. Improvement
examination is prescribed to enable a student to get higher marks for
the examination, which he has already passed. If that be so, the
prescription of facility for improvement examination only for those
subjects for which minimum marks are prescribed for a pass does
not have any relevance or logic. Therefore, I am of opinion that the
particular prescription is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and
unsustainable. Accordingly, that prescription in Ext. P3 modified
order of the University is set aside. It is declared that the petitioners
are entitled to appear for improvement examination for the internal
examination also notwithstanding the fact that no separate minimum
is prescribed for pass om the internal examination. However, I make
it clear that for appearing for the improvement examination, they will
have to undergo the course in the particular subject for the semesters
again. The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/