JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.
1. The 25 petitioners are studying for the award of the Degree of Bachelor of Architecture. They had joined the course under the 1993 Scheme promulgated by the University of Kerala. Under the said Scheme, the University had made the following Regulation:
“Candidates who do not complete the examination in one appearance but complete it in more than one appearance shall be placed only in second class. It shall however be open to such candidates to appear for the whole examination and pass it in one sitting.”
The petitioners complain that the above Regulation is totally arbitrary. A candidate is not given the marks as actually secured by him. In a case where the candidate makes more than one attempt to qualify the examination, he is placed in the second class. Thus, the Regulation is arbitrary. On this basis, it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the Regulations should be annulled. The claim was not accepted. Hence, this appeal.
2. Mr. Gopakumar, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that the result of a candidate should be declared on the basis of the marks actually secured by him. The number of attempts in which a candidate qualifies the examination are irrelevant. If a student secures more than 60% marks he has a right to be placed in the first class. The action in placing him in the second class is arbitrary.
3. The impugned provision embodies a simple rule. If a candidate passes the examination in the first attempt he shall be allotted the class according to his score. In the event of the examination being passed in more than one attempt, the candidate shall be entitled to be placed only in the second class. There is a clear rationale behind the rule. The candidate who passes in the first attempt is considered superior to a candidate who makes more than one attempt in the same examination. Resultantly, the credit of higher marks secured as a result of more than one attempt is denied. Per se the rule is not arbitrary. It reflects a policy evolved by the experts in the field. It is not shown to be violative of any statutory provision. Thus, we find that the view taken by the academic bodies deserves to be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that prior to and after the promulgation of 1993 Scheme, the provisions were different. In particular, he has pointed out that under the Scheme promulgated in the year 1986, the candidate was given the benefit of the actual result. Similarly, in the year 1998, a provision for the declaration of result on the basis of the actual score was made. It may be so. This by itself would not mean that the provision in the 1993 Scheme is invalid. The Scheme is based on the decision of the academic bodies. In the absence of violation of any statutory provision, it cannot be said to be illegal. It is not even arbitrary so as to be struck down by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Mr. Gopakumar then contends that there is a mistake in the declaration of result. If that be so, the appellants can represent to the Vice Chancellor. The appellants actually claim to have represented vide Ext. P8. We have no doubt that the competent authority shall consider and dispose of that representation in accordance with the regulations as observed by the learned Single Judge.
6. No other point has been raised.
In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.