IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 9711 of 1999(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PARVATHY.P.B, D/O. P.K BALASUBRAMANYAN, B-4, MEERA TOWER, ST. BENEDICT ROAD, COCHIN-682 018. BY ADV. MR.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS (P.O), ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS (P.O), ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS (P.O), ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. REENA VARGHESE, C/O. THE PRINCIPAL, S.B. COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 5. USHA JOSE, C/O. THE PRINCIPAL, S.B. COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY. O.P. NO. 9711/1999-F: 6. ANU ELIZABETH WILSON, C/O. THE PRINCIPAL, S.B. COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 9711/1999-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.3. DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE FINAL YEAR M.A. DEGREE EXAMINATIONS 1998. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF MARKS DTD. 04/03/1999 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DTD. 05/01/1993. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DTD. 30/11/1993. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 9711 of 1999 ================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The dispute in this original petition is between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 4 to 6 on the other, regarding the entitlement for award of first rank in M.A. Degree course in English Language and Literature, which course the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 underwent during the years 1996 to 1998. At the relevant time, M.A. Degree examination consisted of two parts, viz., first year and second year. For the first year the petitioner secured 386 marks out of 600. The 4th respondent secured 367 marks, 5th respondent secured 381 marks and the 6th respondent secured 362 marks. Going by those marks, the petitioner secured the highest marks, viz., 386. In the second year all of them wrote examination together and, going by the first year marks and the second year marks so obtained by the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 for both years together, the petitioner got highest marks. However, along with the second year examination respondents 4 to 6 wrote improvement examination for the first year and got far higher marks, as a result of which, respondents 4 to 6 obtained higher total marks, resulting in respondents 4 to 6 being awarded the first three ranks. This is under challenge before me seeking the following reliefs: o.p.9711/99 2 “i) Declare that the second part of clause 3 of Exhibit P4 order is inconsistent with the object underlying the norms for award of ranks and the provisions in clause 2, the first part of clause 3 and clause 4 thereof and to strike down the same by the issue of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, ii) Declare that the marks secured by respondents 4 to 6 in the M.A. Degree (Previous) Improvement examination, May 1998 shall not be reckoned for award of ranks, iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside or quashing the decision evidenced by Exhibit P1 awarding the 1st, 2nd and 3rd ranks for the M.A. Degree Examination 1998 in English Language & Literature to respondents 4, 5 and 6 respectively. iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondents 1 to 3 to award ranks to candidates who appeared for the M.A. Degree Final Examination, May 1998 in English Language & Literature afresh, ignoring the marks secured by them in the improvement examination.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that by Ext.P3 order dated 5.1.1993, the University fixed the norms for award of ranks, as per clause 3 of which, the students who secure higher marks by way of improvement shall not be considered for rank. But, by Ext.P4 dated 30.11.1993, refixed norms were prescribed as per which, one sentence was added to the effect that the students who improve their results within the stipulated period of the concerned courses also be considered for award of ranks. It is based on the second part of clause 3, introduced by Ext.P4, respondents 4 to 6 were given ranks in preference to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that clause 3 is totally unworkable as two clauses are totally inconsistent. 3. The University has filed a counter affidavit justifying the o.p.9711/99 3 award of ranks to respondents 4 to 6. According to them, since respondents 4 to 6 wrote improvement examination within the period of the concerned course, by virtue of the second part of clause 3, they are entitled to reckon their marks obtained in the improvement examination for the purpose of award of rank. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. In Ext.P3, which was the original order, clause 3 read thus: “3. Students who secure higher class/marks by way of improvement shall not be considered for rank.” In Ext.P4 the amended clause 3 reads thus: “3) Candidates who secure higher class/marks by way of improvement shall not be considered for rank. But students who improve their results within the stipulated period of the concerned courses also be considered for award of ranks.” I am of opinion that if the second part of clause 3 is accepted as governing the issue, then first part would become totally otiose. After declaration of results, there is absolutely no relevance for an improvement examination for the purpose of ranking. Once the final year examination results are published, rank would be assigned and even if a candidate writes improvement examination for the next examination, by no stretch of imagination, the marks obtained in that examination can be considered retrospectively to give rank to any candidate. Therefore, if one has to give some meaning to the first part part of clause (3), then the second part has to be ignored. o.p.9711/99 4 6. I am of opinion that it is in the fitness of things to do so in so far as the question of rank comes only among the students who write the same examination. In this case, in the first year examination, which all the students wrote together, the petitioner secured higher marks. The marks in the improvement examination were obtained by respondents 4 to 6 by writing a different examination, in which the petitioner did not participate. Therefore, their marks cannot be considered together for the purpose of ranking. I am of opinion that for a just decision regarding the award of ranking the second part of clause 3 has to be ignored. It is totally inconsistent with the first part thereof. It is not now disputed before me that if the improvement marks obtained by respondents 4 to 6 are not taken into account, the petitioner would be entitled to get first rank. In the circumstances, the original petition is allowed and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to first rank in M.A. English Language and Literature of the Mahatma Gandhi University for the course undergone during 1996 to 1998. The University shall issue a rank certificate to the petitioner certifying that she got the first rank, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 9711 of 1999-F ================== J U D G M E N T 18th March, 2009