IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 26329 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.ASOKAN, ANASWARA, GRA 76, GOWREESA PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THEKERALA LOK AYUKTA, ASSEMBLY COMPLEX, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON 18/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)No.26329 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF THE PASS BOARD. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT NO.2462 OF 2007 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.2.2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF DECISION DATED 18.04.08 OF THE STNDING COMMITTEE ON EXAMINATIONS.. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.7.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R-1: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE vgd S.SIRI JAGAN ----------------------------- WP(C) No.26329 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the University of Kerala. They are challenging Exts. P3 and P5 orders of the Kerala Lok ayukta, directing the university to award moderation marks to the 1st respondent for passing the B.A.Part III English Literature examination conducted by the petitioner in 2007. The 1st respondent complained before the Lokayukta that although all the other candidates were given moderation marks, he was denied the same, which amounts to discrimination, which was accepted by the Lokayukta. According to the University the Pass Board decided to give 12 marks as moderation for a first class, second class and 3rd class and the said benefit was not available to those who have appeared for the examination compartmentally, who would not be certified as having obtained any first class, second class or third class. The petitioner, being a person who appeared for the examination compartmentally, is therefore not eligible for moderation marks is the contention of the university. They would contend that the decision of the university, in any event, does not amount to maladministration without which the Lokayukta would not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 2. The 1st respondent submits that he was short by one mark for a pass in the examination, but he admits that he appeared for the examination compartmentally. His contention is that pass in the examination amounts to a W.P.C.No.26329 of 2008 2 third class and therefore moderation is available for securing pass marks also. According to the first respondent, denial of moderation marks to the first respondent amounts to maladministration by the University. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The moderation marks were awarded as per Ext.P1 decision of the Pass Board which reads thus: “ The board unanimously decided to give 12 marks as moderation for a first class, second class and third class. The board also decided to award 2 marks for the subsidiary subject namely History of English literature. No moderation mark is to be given for the subsidiary subjects namely American literature and Indian literature in English.” It is not disputed before me that those who passes the examination compartmentally would not be given a certificate showing that they have passed the examination in third class. Ext. P1 shows that the Board decided to give moderation marks only for a first, second and a third class. Of course those who secures third class would also only pass the examination. But both interpretations are equally possible. When two interpretations are possible and the University has adopted one of the two interpretations, it cannot be said the University is guilty of maladministration. Lok Ayukta can entertain such complaints only if there is maladministration. As such the Lok Ayukta did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the 1st W.P.C.No.26329 of 2008 3 respondent. That being so Exts.P3 & P5 orders of the second respondent are clearly without jurisdiction. Accordingly they are quashed. However I make it clear that the first respondent is free to take appropriate other proceedings in the matter for getting moderation marks, if he still maintains that he is entitled to moderation marks. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE vgd