IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11266 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. PREJITH V.S., S/O.V.N.SASEENDRAN, VADUTHALA HOUSE, VADUTHALA , KOCHI-23. 2. ANISH P.A, BHIM JYOTHI, POOVANMALA, ELAVUMTHITTA, POTTANTHITTA. 3. ANOOB S.T., THRIKKETTA HOUSE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. ANSON MATHEW.C., S/O.KOCHU MATHEW CHITTATTUKARA HOUSE, AVANAVU ROAD, THRISSUR. 5. ARUN KUMAR T.A., THARAYIL HOUSE, DESENT LINE, OLARI KARA, P.O.PULEZHI, THRISSUR. 6. ELDHOSE VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE THRISSUR. 7. HARI KIRAN.M., GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 8. JAYADEVAN.M.S., GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 9. MATHEW THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS MATHEW, VANIAPURAKAL HOUSE, KOLLAM. 10. MIDHUN NISHOL, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 11. NAVEEN ALFRED, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 12. PRADEESH KUMAR, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. WPC 11266/08 Page numbers 13. PRAVEEN.M.B., GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 14. RADHAKRISHNAN.C.K.,GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 15. RAJLAL.R., THOPPIL BUNGLOW, PANIMALA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 16. RANJU.T.R., THEKKEKUDY HOUSE, NALUKETTU P.O., THRISSUR. 17. REJI.U.N., UNNIKOCHEN HOUSE, KUNDALOOR POST, ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR. 18. SAKER HUSSAIN, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 19. SHINE BABU, S/O.MUHAMMED BABU, H.NO.VI/220 GM, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR. 20. SREEJITH.A.S., AVEN HOUSE, THEKKUPURAM, KUNNAMKULAM P.O., THRISSUR. 21. SREERAJ K.S., S/O.SREEDHARAN, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI. 22. SHYAM.P.ANTONY, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 23. VARGHESE JOHN, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 24. VARGHESE M.C., MODAYIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM. 25. DISHA.I., GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 26. MANILA, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 27. RENNY.K.GEORGE, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 28. RESHMA LATHIFF, CHALIL HOUSE, WEST ARANKULAM, KODUNGALLUR. WPC 11266/08 Page numbers 29. JITHA.S.PILLAI, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 30. LIYA N.M. GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 31. PRAMEELA.P.K., GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 32. SHAHANA.R, MEZHIVEL HOUSE, CLAPPANA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 33. SHERIN.K.GEORGE, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 34. SILGY P.I., GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 35. SONU.S.UTHAMAN, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 36. RESHMI.B., NO.S.7 KWAQ, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENJIPALAM, CALICUT. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENJIPALAM, CALICUT. 3. PRINCIPAL, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 11266 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: APRIL 2, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are law student. In this writ petition what is sought for is a direction to permit them to appear for the 10th semester examination which has been denied to them for not acquiring the BAL Degree. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the University has produced before me the regulations governing the grant of LLB Degree. It is stated that in the case of 5 year LLB Course, only those students who are eligible for the award of BAL Degree shall be entitled to appear for the 10th semester theory examination. In terms of the Regulations, only those students who have successfully completed upto the 6th semester examination alone are eligible for award of BAL Degree. 3. As far as the petitioners are concerned, they have not completed the 6th semester and therefore they are declined permission to appear for the 10th semester examination. Going by WP(C) 11266/08 Page numbers the Regulations, the position as canvassed by the standing counsel for the University deserves to be accepted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Exts.P1 and P2 which are orders issued by the University itself in 2006 and 2007 permitting students to appear for the 10th semester examination irrespective of their eligibility for BAL Degree. True, the standing counsel for the University also accepts this position, but, however, submits that the Board of Studies of the University itself has resolved not to relax the regulations and to strictly implement the regulations. 5. In my view, this court will not be justified in directing to relax the regulations. In any case, the relaxation granted is contrary to the regulations and cannot be treated as a precedent for the petitioners to claim parity in treatment. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-