IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34352 of 2008(M)
1. SUNIL B., 4TH SEM M-TCH STUDENT, IN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,
3. THE PRINCIPAL, MAR ATHANASIOUS COLLEGE
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :27/11/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C)s.34352/2008 & 34487/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Common issues arise for consideration in these
two writ petitions and therefore, they have been heard
together and are being disposed of by a common
judgment.
2. I heard Mr.C.S.Ajith Prakash and Mr.Sajjad,
learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions
and Mr.T.A.Shaji learned Standing Counsel for the
University. I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition
No.34352/2008, which are substantially similar to the
facts involved in the other writ petition also.
3. Petitioner is an M.Tech student prosecuting his
course in a College affiliated to M.G.University. The
Course is spread over four semesters. Ext.P8 is the
regulations framed by the University governing M.Tech
Course. Petitioner is a good student who had cleared
all the papers in the 1st semester. But in the 2nd
W.P.(C).34352/2008 &
34487/2008 2
semester, he was disabled from appearing for one of the
papers due to medical reasons. He was able to acquire a
good average going by the results in the other papers
alone. Petitioner cleared all the papers in the 3rd
semester and has come to the end of the 4th semester.
But his hall ticket is withheld due to the reason that he
has not cleared all the papers in the 2nd semester. In the
case of the petitioner, it is a reason beyond his control
which prevented him from appearing in one of the
papers in the 2nd semester examination. He has actually
appeared in the said paper in the supplementary
examination held in November, 2008.
4. Regulation in question which disables the
petitioners from appearing in the 4th semester
examination is contained in clause 11, which reads as
follows:-
Evaluation of industrial
training/masters research project work
will be taken up only after the student
completes the entire core subjects as
W.P.(C).34352/2008 &
34487/2008 3
well as elective subjects requirements.
However, the candidates are eligible to
appear for the Masters Comprehensive
viva only after the successful
completion of the first three semesters
of the masters programme.
5. Mr.Ajith Prakash learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that distinction will have to be drawn
between the first and second limb of clause which says
that evaluation of Industrial training/masters research
project work will be taken up only after the student
completes the entire core subjects as well as elective
subjects requirements. According to him, successful
completion of the first three semesters can be treated as
a requirement only for appearing in the Masters
Comprehensive Viva voce. Assuming this be so, the 4th
semester is divided into two parts, one is the Evaluation
of the Industrial training/Masters research project and
the other is Masters Comprehensive Viva. It would
serve no purpose to undergo evaluation of the training of
the Masters Research Project alone if at the same time,
W.P.(C).34352/2008 &
34487/2008 4
it disables the student from participating in the Masters
Comprehensive Viva. I do not find anything in the
regulation which spells out a dilution in so far as the
requirement “successful completion of the first three
semesters to secure the eligibility to appear in the
Masters Comprehensive Viva”. No doubt, in the case of
the petitioner’s, good students who were prevented from
appearing in one of the examinations in the 2nd semester
due to medical reasons, are visited with a hardship. But
I do not find any provision which contemplates a dilution
of the requirements. Though, it may be the misfortune
of the petitioner that he is not able to participate in the
4th semester examination, I can interfere only if I am
able to find any illegality in the stand taken by the
University and this I am not able to do.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one
student who was similarly situated in the previous year
was so permitted to appear in the last without clearing
all the earlier papers. On instructions, Mr.T.A.Shaji,
learned Standing Counsel for the University, submits
W.P.(C).34352/2008 &
34487/2008 5
that it is true that the student who had not cleared all
the papers in the 3rd semester was permitted to
participate in the 4th semester examination on a
provisional basis. But it was later found that she was not
eligible and her participation was cancelled as well.
Mr.Ajith Prakash submits that said cancellation was
because she had failed to clear the papers and not
because she was found ineligible, at a later stage. This
aspect is disputed by the learned counsel for the
University.
7. I do not propose to conduct an enquiry on this
aspect in as much as the University cannot be faulted
with for implementing the regulations. If a wrong was
committed earlier, that does not afford a justification
for this Court to direct the University to perpetuate the
mistake.
8. The Supreme Court and a Bench of this Court had
repeatedly held that regulations in academic matters
cannot be permitted to be diluted. If that be so, I do not
W.P.(C).34352/2008 &
34487/2008 6
find my way to issue any direction to the University.
Writ petitions are bereft of merit and hence dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs