IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32290 of 2011(I) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. CHIKKU R.PULICKAN, S/O.K.N.RAVI, AGED 20 YEARS, 3RD SEMESTER B.TECH MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STUDENT, SNM INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, MALYANKARA P.O., MOOTHAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 516. 2. GHIKKU R.PULICKAN, S/O.K.N.RAVI, 3RD SEMESTER B.TECH MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STUDENT SNM INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, MALYANKARA P.O., MOOTHAKUNNAM,ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 516. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560. 2. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560. 3. THE SYNDICATE OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BYITS VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560. 4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, SNM INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY,MALYANKARA P.O., MOOTHAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 516. R1 TO R4 BY SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JM WPC NO. 32290 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INTER COLLEGIATE WEIGHT LIFTING CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE YEAR 2010-11. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INTER COLLEGIATE WEIGHT LIFTING CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE YEAR 2010-11 IN 12O KG. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF JUNIOR STATE WEIGHT LIFTING CHAMPIONSHIP OF MARCH 2011. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF SENIOR STATE WEIGHT LIFTING CHAMPIONSHIP OF FEBRUARY 2011. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF WRESTLING COMPETITION HELD BY KERALA STATE WERSTLING ASSOCIATION ON 30/1/2011. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF CETTIFICATE SHOWING REPRESENTATION OF STATE JUNIOR NATIONAL JUDO CHAMPIONSHIP IN 2010-11. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF WRESTLING HLED BY KERALA STATE WRESTLING ASSOCIATION ON 30/1/2011. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2003 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/1/2010 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/10/2010 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF MARK SHEET OF 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P12. TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P13. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2/11/2011 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P14. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2/11/2011 OF 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL \\ TRUE COPY\\ PA TO JUDGE JM ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32290 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are B.Tech Degree students of the College to which the 5th respondent is the Principal. This College is affiliated to the first respondent, University. 2. In this writ petition what they challenge is Ext.P10, an order issued by the first respondent, University on 20.10.2010 revising the norms for awarding grace marks to B.Tech students who had participated in Sports and Games, N.S.S., N.C.C and cultural activities. According to the petitioners, Ext.P2 is the norms issued by the University, regarding the award of grace marks. It is stated that the grace marks as provided in Ext.P8 vary from 1% to 25% whereas the grace marks provided in Ext.P2 vary from only 1% to 5%. 3. It is stated that students, irrespective of the W.P.(C) No. 32290 OF 2011 :2 : courses which they study, have to be treated as one class and that they cannot be discriminated in the matter of grace marks. It is also contended that the amount of time spent for participating in the items being equal, therefore there is no reason to discriminate them. 4. The University had issued Ext.P8 order unifying the norms for award of grace marks. As per Ext.P8 the University excluded only medical students and students of professional courses such as B.A.M.S, B.H.M.S, B.D.S. etc. In other words Ext.P8 initially included B.Tech students also. However as far as B.Tech students are concerned, the norms were again revised by Ext.P10 order and the reasons for such revision are stated in Ext.P10 thus: “As per the U.O. Read (3) & (4) above the benefit of grace marks was extended to the eligible students of Professional courses except Medical & Para Medical courses from the W.P.(C) No. 32290 OF 2011 :3 : academic year 2008-2009 onwards. The examination wing has pointed out the practical difficulties in awarding the grace marks to the B.Tech student as per the above University orders. The matter was referred to the SSCA and it was recommended to implement special norms for awarding grace marks to the students of the B.Tech course.” 5. It is also stated that the matter was referred to the Syndicate Standing Committee on Academic Affairs and the said Committee considered the practical difficulties pointed out and recommended the proposals contained in Ext.P10. Thus from Ext.P10 itself it is evident that the revised proposals were approved by the expert committee of the University which is in charge of the academic affairs. Once an expert committee has taken a decision as stated in Ext.P10, unless there is strong W.P.(C) No. 32290 OF 2011 :4 : decision to disagree with the said view, this court will not be justified in upsetting the same. Moreover, there is absolutely no material in this writ petition to hold that the view taken by the expert committee is perverse for any reason. 6. As far as the case of the petitioners' that the students should be treated as one class and that the time spent by all being almost equal, there should be no discrimination is concerned, I must confess my inability to accept this contention. Though the students in general can be said to form one class, depending upon the courses undergone by them, they are liable to be classified differently. Even in Ext.P8 such a classification has been made. Therefore if the experts of the University have decided to treat Engineering students separately, such a classification cannot be said to vitiated for any reason. W.P.(C) No. 32290 OF 2011 :5 : I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P10 and hence this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge