IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17538 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PURUSH.P.K., S/O.R.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, USHUS, PUNNAMMODU, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SMT.T.H.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP.BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. M.S.SHEREENA BALAKRISHNAN.B., H.NO.42/2137, `RAJEEVAM' HOUSE, KUTHAPPADY, THAMMANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 032. 4. SMITHA.M.V., C/O.BIJU, KALLAYARMATTOM HOUSE, SHM NATTASSERY, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC., MG. UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 17538/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE MARK LISTS OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED 22/04/2009 & 27/05/2009. P2: COPY OF THE REGULATIONS AND SCHEME OF EXAMINATION FOR THE LLM DEGREE. P3: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 26/08/2009. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1263/32009/AC.AIV DATED 13/01/2010 FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, M.G. UNIVERSITY. P5: COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE LETTER DATED 05/10/2009. P6: COPY OF THE NEW PROVISIONAL DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 09/04/2010. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER REGARDING GUIDELINES NO.AC.AIII/12004 FOR THE ISSUE OF RANK DATED 28/02/2004. P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.23531/2010 DTD. 10/08/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.17538 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an LLM student under respondents 1 and 2 during the period 2006-08. Though he completed the course in 2008, he passed the examination only in the year 2009. Though he secured the highest marks, he was not awarded the 1st rank. It is therefore this writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner in the year 2007 when the 1st year examination was conducted, due to illness he could not appear in the examination. It is his case that the supplementary examination for the year 2008-09 was conducted only in January 2009 and therefore the said examination should be treated as one held within the stipulated course period. On this basis the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to issue him a rank certificate to the effect that he got the first rank. 3. Standing counsel for the University on W.P(C) No.17538 of 2011 2 instructions submitted that when the 1st year examination was held in 2007, the petitioner did not appear in the examination. According to him in the 2nd year examination held in the year 2008 the petitioner appeared and passed in the examination and though he had the opportunity to appear for the 1st year examination also, petitioner did not avail of the same. On the other hand the petitioner appeared only for the supplementary examination held in January 2009 and passed the examination. 4. It is pointed out that Ext.P7 is the relevant regulation, Clause 2 of which reads thus: “2. Ranks will be awarded only to those candidates who complete their courses and examinations within the minimum stipulated period of time.” According to the standing counsel, since the petitioner did not complete the course within the minimum stipulated period of two years, the petitioner is ineligible to award the rank. 5. Having considered the rival submission, I am W.P(C) No.17538 of 2011 3 inclined to agree with the standing counsel for the University. In this writ petition there is no challenge against the above regulation. Going by the regulations, unless the student complete the course and examination within the minimum stipulated period, the students cannot aspire for awarding of rank. The minimum stipulated period for the LLM course is two years and admittedly the petitioner did not appear the examination within the said period. On this ground itself this relief should be declined to the petitioner. 6. Yet another contention raised by the standing counsel for the University is that having regard to the limited number of seats available, supplementary examinations for LLB are not held as a matter of course. According to him, only on the basis of requests such examinations are held and that there is no compulsion on the University to conduct supplementary examination on annual basis. It is stated that the fact that the University did not conduct any supplementary examination in 2008, it also did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, as the W.P(C) No.17538 of 2011 4 petitioner could have appeared for the regular examination held in 2008. 7. The petitioner has not been able to show any regulation obliging the University to conduct supplementary examination on annual basis. If that be so, I am not in a position to find fault with the University on the basis that they did not hold any supplementary examination in 2008. That apart I also find merit in the contention that the petitioner could have appeared in the regular first year examination held in 2008, which chance was not availed by the petitioner. 8. In any case, for the reason that the petitioner did not complete the examination within the minimum stipulated period of two years, in view of Clause 2 of Ext.P7 regulation the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC ab JUDGE