IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36563 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. BASIL JOSE P.K., PUKKUNNEL HOUSE, POTHANIKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. AVINASH BABU, AVINASH VILLA, VELOOR, VETTIKKARA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, TRICHUR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36563 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are 10th Semester students in the Government Law College. Admittedly, petitioners have not passed some of the papers upto 6th semester. Apparently for that reason, they are not been permitted to appear for the final year examination, which is to commence on 5/1/2011. It is in these circumstances, the writ has been filed. Counsel for the petitioners heavily relies on the averments in Ext.P1, a copy of WP(C) No.15354/07 filed by similarly situated persons, who were to appear for the 10th semester examination in 2007. It is stated that taking note of the averments in that writ petition, University itself decided to permit the petitioners therein to write the examination, and therefore, the writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners therein. Ext.P2 is the judgment. Counsel also made reference to Ext.P3, which according to the petitioners show that even subsequently the University permitted similar students to appear in the 10th semester. 2. However, standing counsel for the University brought WPC No. 36563/10 :2 : to my notice the Regulations of the University, which inter a ia provides that in the case of 5 year L.L.B.Course, only those s udents who are eligible for the award of B.A.L. (Bachelor of Academic Laws) Degree shall be entitled to appear for the 10th Semester Theory Examination. Counsel also confesses that in some of the previous years, University did take decisions permitting students to appear for the final examinations despite the aforesaid regulations. It is submitted that what is seen in Ext.P2 judgment and in Ext.P3 list are cases of such relaxations. According to the learned counsel, subsequently the matter was taken note of by the Academic Council and that the Academic Council itself decided that henceforth there will be no relaxations and that the regulations will be strictly enforced. 3. Irrespective of Exts.P1 and P2, fact remains that even according to the petitioners, going by the regulations, for the reason that they have not passed all papers upto 6th semester, they are ineligible to appear for the final examination. If that be so, petitioners cannot seek any direction from this Court to require the University to permit them to appear for the examinations. The fact that in the previous years contrary to the WPC No. 36563/10 :3 : regulations, students were permitted to appear for the examination, in my view, cannot be claimed as a precedent to require this Court to issue directions to the University to permit ineligible students to appear again for the final examination. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp