IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 21216 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ R.SRINATH, SHRIDHAMA, 57/939,KARIKKAMURI, KOCHI-682011. BY ADVS.MR.V.V.MATHEW SMT.K.N.RAJANI MR.J.VIMAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. M.G.UNIVERSITY, REP. BY REGISTRAR M.G.UNIVERSITTY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS.P.O. KOTTAYAM-686560 2. VICE-CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O. KOTTAYAM/686560. 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS.P.O. KOTTAYAM-686560 4. SRI. MATHEW.P.V. ST.MARY'S CHURCH, KAINADYP.O., CHANGAMNASSERY-686534. R1-R3 BY ADVS.MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R4 BY BY ADVS.MR.SUJITH P.SURENDRAN, MR.P.PRASANTH . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.21216/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST WITH REGISER NO.33060 DTD. 23RD SEPTMBER 2004. P2:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST WITH REGISTER NO.604 B DTD. 15TH OCTOBER 2005. P3:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST WITH REGISTER NO.33060 DTD. 25TH FEBRUARY 2006. P4:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST WITH REGISTER NO.33060 DTD. 19TH JANUARY 2006. P5:- COPY OF THE MARK LIT WITH REGISTER NO.33060 DTD. 28TH APRIL, 2006. P6:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST WITH REGISTER NO.33060 DT. 18TH OCTOBER, 2006. P7:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST WITH REGISTER NO.33060 DTD. 2ND MAY 2007. P8:- COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF MARKS DTD. 2.5.07. P9:- COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 23.5.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 18.6.07. P11:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23.6.09. P12:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 20.7.06 IN WPC. 27160/05. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC/AIII/1/2004 DTD. 28.2.04 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.21216 of 2009-V - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein was a student of three year LLB course 2003- 2006 in the Government Law College, Ernakulam. The dispute herein is regarding the award of Ist rank for the year 2005-2006 in favour of the 4th respondent. 2. The examinations for the three year LLB course are conducted in six semesters. In the examination which was held in April, 2004, out of six papers, the petitioner attempted the examination in four papers as he could not appear in two papers because of certain illness. He passed the four papers in the said examination and as regards the remaining two papers, the next available chance being in March, 2005, he wrote the examination availing the said chance. As regards subsequent semesters also, he had attended the examinations from time to time and the results are in his favour. Ext.P8 is the consolidated statement of marks dated 2.5.2007 and Ext.P9 is the copy of the provisional certificate. 3. The University awarded the Ist rank to the 4th respondent. It is the petitioner's case that going by the merit, the petitioner was entitled to be wpc 21216/2009 2 awarded Ist rank. Ext.P11 is the representation filed by him in this regard. The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P12 judgment also in the matter. Ext.P13 is relied upon to show that going by the Office Order issued by the University adopting the norms for awarding of marks for the various examinations, marks obtained by the petitioner even in respect of the two subjects availing second chance, can be considered. 4. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, the stand taken is that the University awarded the first rank to the 4th respondent in accordance with the regulations in force, and relevant orders issued by the University in this regard. Going by the regulations, the ranking shall be done on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the whole examinations passed in the first chance. The petitioner had not passed the first semester examination at the first chance in April, 2004. It is also stated that Ext.P13 lays down revised norms for awarding ranks for various examinations and as far as this case is concerned, the regulations for the LLB 3/5 year examination will apply. 5. Therefore, the crucial issue is whether Ext.P13 will govern the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by Ext.P13, especially clauses 2 and 3, it can be seen that even in respect of students wpc 21216/2009 3 who improve their results, the said marks are liable to be taken care of and therefore, in a case like this, where the petitioner could not attend the examination in two papers because of acute illness, the marks of the said examination cannot be ignored for the purpose of awarding rank. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that a separate regulation has been framed for the purpose of awarding of ranks in LLB Examination. The crucial clause therein provides as follows: “Ranking shall be done on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate in the whole examinations passed in the first chance.” It is therefore contended that as the petitioner has not completed the Ist semester in all the subjects in the first chance, his case was not considered. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as two subjects are concerned, he had written the examination in the first chance and merely because he was absent for the two papers in the examination held in April 2004, it cannot be said that he had availed a second chance. 6. Going by Ext.P1, it can be seen that the petitioner was expected to appear for six papers and he was absent for two papers, viz. Constitutional Law - I and Family Law - I. True that he was able to clear the same in the examination which was held subsequently in March 2005. The question is whether the examination undergone by the petitioner was by availing the wpc 21216/2009 4 first chance. Obviously, the chance which was initially to be availed of by him was in April, 2004. At that point of time, he could not write the examination because of illness. But still, the chance availed of by him in March, 2005 will be the second one. Therefore, going by the regulation, only the marks obtained by the candidate in the whole examination passed in first chance, alone could be reckoned. 7. Regarding Ext.P12 judgment also, learned Standing Counsel for the University explained that therein the general norms like Ext.P13 was considered and as far as this particular course is concerned, it is governed by the specific regulations and therefore the principles stated therein are liable to be distinguished. I find force in the said submission also. In the above view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/