IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31619 of 2006(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUJITH .B, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KADEPARAMBIL (H), ENADI P.O., KULASHEKHARA MANGALAM, VAIKOM- 686 608. BY ADVS. MR.C.V.MANUVILSAN, MR.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR), MR.P.C.ANIL KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R3 BY MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31619/2006-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REGULATION OF THE M.G. UNIVERSITY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MARK LIST. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ASST. REGISTRAR. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/05/2006. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22/06/2006. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE (CSS) NO. CSS/3/SGT/03-05 DTD. 03/08/2006. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO. CSS/1/SGT/PG/04-06 DTD. 09/10/2006. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN COC.NO.1264/2006. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE DETAILED MARK LIST. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MARK LIST. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- WPC. No.31619 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated, the 24th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a student of M.A. Gandhian Studies in the respondent university. He had passed M.A degree with 54% marks in the examination. According to the petitioner, he had succeeded in securing 1102 marks out of 1900. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he had obtained 58% marks. If that be so, under the grading system he is entitled to get “B+”. But the University authorities awarded him the grade of “B Only” and therefore he preferred this writ petition to quash Ext.P9. It is also prayed that for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to issue corrected mark list and also sought for a general direction to the respondents to take sincere and effective steps to make the credit and semester system more transparent and student friendly. 2. On behalf of the respondents a detailed counter wpc 31619/06 -:2:- affidavit is filed by the Controller of Examinations of the M.G.University in which it is elaborately stated about the various mode of calculation and method adopted in fixing the grade. According to the counter affidavit, the Credit and Semester System (CSS) following in the University is scientific and was approved by the Academic Council of the University as per Section 25 of the M.G.University Act. According to the counter affidavit, as per the CSS Regulations which govern the CSS, the SPI (Semester Performance Index) is the weighted average of the numerical value (grade point) obtained by the candidate in the semester. Weighted average is calculated by dividing the sum of the product of the grade point or numerical value obtained for each course (paper) and the credits that it carries by the total number of credits earned. Each letter grades has been assigned a numerical value as shown in the Clause 10 of CSS Regulation. The final grade will be awarded to the student as per the CPI (Cumulative Performance Index) obtained wpc 31619/06 -:3:- by him/her in the final end semester examination. The CPI for the whole programme will be calculated in the same way as that of SPI, which is calculated as per the following formula: CPI =SITI+S2T2+ ----------SnTn ____________________________ TI+T2+------------------------Tn According to the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to get 'B Only' when his mark is calculated following the above formula. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel for the University. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had obtained 1102 marks out of 1900 and therefore, his percentage will be more than 54%. According to the respondents, the petitioner's mark, 51/100 for the above subject code SGPT- 526 comes within the range of bove 45% but below 55% and hence relative grade 'B Only' was awarded. According to the respondents, the same wpc 31619/06 -:4:- formula was applied to each paper. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, they have stated as to how the percentage is calculated. According to the respondents, the percentage of marks secured by a candidate is assessed as per the CPI that he had obtained in the examination. The CPI is the weighted average of the numerical value/grade point obtained in the entire semester. In other words, weighted average is calculated by dividing the sum of the products of the grade point or numerical value obtained for each course and the credit it carries by the number of credits earned. The elaborate calculation regarding the percentage of marks of the petitioner is given in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit. There is no dispute that the CPI with respect to the marks obtained by the petitioner in the degree examination is 5.89. Therefore, according to the respondents, the percentage he got is only 54% . In the light of the above mode of calculation and method for fixing the grade, the contention of the petitioner is that he had lost substantial wpc 31619/06 -:5:- quantity of marks from the total marks which he obtained for the papers cannot be accepted. 5. In page 4 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated the mode of grading system in which grade 'B Only' indicates performance as average and percentage of marks between 45 - 54 and then given grade point as 5. Fixing the grade is merely on the basis of the marks actually obtained in the examination after converting those marks into percentage. Thus, as pointed out by the respondents, in grading system, grade has to be calculated by calculating the percentage , that is, a deviation from the conventional system. Thus, actual percentage of marks obtained by the candidate/petitioner is only 54 % when actually calculated under the grading system. Thus, the percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner is 54% that will come in between 45 -54 and the grade is 'B Only, for which the petitioner actually deserves. In the light of the above facts and the mode of wpc 31619/06 -:6:- calculation and method of fixing the grade, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- wpc 31619/06 -:7:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..