IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 4350 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SAHAD.M, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, MANNIKKUNNAN HOUSE, PARAMBOOR PATTIKKAD P.O., PERINTALMANNA TALUK. 2. SHABEER P.K., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, PUTHENKULAM HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O., PERINTALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 12669 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4350 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS GOVER5NING MASTER OF COMMERCE PROGRAM EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 18.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.GA1/E3/10225 DT.8.7.2008 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 30.10.08 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE 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