IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34352 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNIL B., 4TH SEM M-TCH STUDENT, IN MAR-ATHANASIOUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTHAMANGALAM, RESIDING AT NELLIVILA VEEDU, EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, ATHIRAMPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, MAR ATHANASIOUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTTAYAM. BY SC SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).34487/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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