IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4350 of 2009(P)
1. SAHAD.M, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.UMMER,
... Petitioner
2. SHABEER P.K., AGED 23 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
3. THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF DISTANCE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :27/10/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) Nos. 4350 & 12669 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 27th October,2009
J U D G M E N T
These writ petitions involve common questions. They
have been heard together and are being disposed of by a
common judgment. I will refer to the facts in WPC
No.4350/09. Discussion of the contentions raised
therein will govern the connected writ petition also.
2. Petitioners are M.Com students in the School of
Distance Education under the 1st respondent University.
They commenced their course in September 2007. As per
Ext.P1 regulations issued by the University, students of
M.Com have to undergo four semester course with 19
theory papers for 80 marks each. They have to submit a
project report for 100 marks and two assignment papers
of 10 marks each for every subject. In the place of project
report and assignment papers, which is applicable to the
students of the School of Distance Education, the students
in the regular stream have to attend a viva voce and are
awarded with internal marks (Sessional Marks).
W.P ( C) Nos. 4350 & 12669 of 2009
2
3. Petitioners were prosecuting the course. They
completed two semesters. They are preparing to write
their first year examination. They then came to know of
Ext.P2 communication issued by the 3rd respondent
notifying the revision of the syllabus and also the
introduction of two new descriptive papers under the title
of ‘Accounting Practices’ for 200 marks at the end of the
1st year and another for 180 marks under the head of
‘Business Policy and Practices’ at the end of the second
year. These two descriptive papers are in lieu of
assignments . Ext.P2 is seen to have been issued on the
basis of Ext.P3. Ext.P3 reflects the decision taken by the
Academic Council. The relevant portion of the same reads
as follows:
“Sanction has therefore been accorded to
implement the decision of the Faculty of
Commerce and Management Studies that
“Regarding the internal assessment of M.Com
course in School of Distance Education it was
resolved to introduce two descriptive papers one
in the first year carrying 200 marks and the other
in the second year carrying 180 marks, for the
students registered for M.Com under School of
Distance Education from 2007 admission
onwards.”
W.P ( C) Nos. 4350 & 12669 of 2009
3
4. Exts.P2 and P3 have been challenged in the writ
petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondents.
5. In the meanwhile, petitioners were permitted to
give their examinations as per an interim order passed by
this Court. They have given their examinations as per
Ext.P1 except the additional descriptive papers which they
have to give as per Ext.P2.
6. Heard Mr.P.Shamsudin, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.P.C Sasidharan, learned counsel for the
University.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
assuming that the academic council of the University is
entitled to adopt a new format for examination and
assessment of the candidates who are prosecuting a course
as students of the Distance Education Programme, the said
change can be effected only prospectively. Ext.P3 reflects
the decision taken by the Academic Council in its meeting
held on 5.4.2008 and it is made applicable to the students
registered for M.Com for the year 2007 batch onwards.
W.P ( C) Nos. 4350 & 12669 of 2009
4
Thus retrospective effect has been given to the decision,he
contends.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Ext.P3 does not reflect a change of syllabus. The only
change effected is to bring about the requirement of two
descriptive papers, one at the end of the first year and
another at the end of the second year in lieu of
assignments. This was the change brought about for the
students of the School of Distance Education, since it was
found that proper assessment of their merit was not
possible by way of internal assessment. The students of the
School of Distance Education do not attend regular classes
and their prosecution of studies is not regularly monitored
by any Board of Teachers. Therefore, their knowledge and
acumen could be tested effectively, only by a written
examination. The decision taken under Ext.P3, it is
contended, is within the powers of the University. The
petitioners were required to give the additional descriptive
papers at the end of the first year only by April 2009.
Therefore, they had clear six months from the date of
W.P ( C) Nos. 4350 & 12669 of 2009
5
Ext.P3 to prepare for such paper. The additional paper
comprehends the same syllabus and does not comprehend
any additional syllabus.
9. Having heard counsel on both sides, I take note
of the fact that Ext.P3 was no doubt issued during the
currency of the course which the petitioner had
commenced in the year 2007. But it cannot be disputed
that the Academic Council of the University has the
jurisdiction to take a decision in the nature of Ext.P3. The
question is regarding prejudice, if any caused to the
petitioners by reason of a decision having been taken
during the period when they have been prosecuting a
course. I do not think that any serious prejudice has been
caused to the petitioners in this regard since they had
notice of about six months regarding the requirement to
give an additional descriptive paper at the end of the first
year. The second additional descriptive paper is to be
taken only at the end of the 2nd year. Obviously it cannot
cause any prejudice to the petitioners since they obviously
got more than 1 1/2 year’s time in this regard.
W.P ( C) Nos. 4350 & 12669 of 2009
6
Significantly, the additional descriptive paper would only
comprehend the existing syllabus and if that be so,
petitioners cannot claim any serious prejudice by being
required to answer the additional papers from the same
syllabus in lieu of internal assignment.
10. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with
Exts.P2 and P3 even for the limited purpose of considering
the contention of 2007 batch students.
11. Learned counsel for the University is right in
relying on the dictum laid down by the Bench of this Court
in WPC No.16477 of 2009 and connected cases. The Bench
has reiterated the principle that this Court would be
reluctant to interfere with academic matters since it is
better left to the wisdom of the Academic Council.
12. I also record the submission made by the
learned counsel for the University, Sri.P.C Sasidharan that
the petitioners would be given the liberty to give their
additional descriptive papers of Accounting Practices and
Business Policy and Practices, as and when Examinations
for the said papers for the students of School of Distance
W.P ( C) Nos. 4350 & 12669 of 2009
7
Education are held. The said examination should be held
before the petitioners complete their course.
Subject to the above, the writ petitions are disposed
of.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) Nos. 4350 & 12669 of 2009
8
W.P ( C) Nos. 4350 & 12669 of 2009
9