IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29263 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANSAR.M.M., S/O.MYTHEEN.M.K., MAROTTICKAL HOUSE, PALLATIMANGALAM P.O., MADUYOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. DILU CHAKRAVARTHI.K.S., KODUVILA KORAYIL, VETTICKODE P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. HARISH.T.R., THAIPARAMPIL HOUSE, ZAKERIA WARD, BAZAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 4. JOSE.P.J., PAREMACKAL HOUSE, KALLEKULANGARA P.O., PALAKKAD-9. 5. RETHEESHKUMAR.M., KATTANGANATTUVELI, CMC 22 CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. SC SRI. T.A. SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.29263 OF 2010(G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were Five Year LLB students in the Government Law College, Ernakulam. In the 3rd and 5th semesters examinations, petitioners failed in some of the papers. Their supplementary examination results were awaited. At that stage, the 10th semester examination was scheduled in November, 2009. 2. As per the regulations, unless a student has successfully completed up to the 6th semesters, he is ineligible to appear in the 10th semester examination. Althoguh the petitioners were thus ineligible to appear for the 10th semester examination, it would appear that by Ext.P1 proceedings the University permitted the petitioners to appear for the 10th semester examination provisionally as the results of the supplementary examinations were not published at that time. 3. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared for the examination but when the results of their supplementary examinations were declared the petitioners failed. Therefore they applied for revaluation. Then also there was no improvement in WPC.No.29263 /2010 :2 : the situation. Subsequently, petitioners again appeared for the supplementary examination held in March and April, 2010 and in the results that were declared in July, 2010, they cleared all the papers. 4. Meanwhile, though the results of 10th semester examination was declared, the University withheld the petitioners' result and even as on date the position continues as such. It is in this background the writ petition has been filed praying that the University shall be directed to declare the 10th semester result of the petitioner. 5. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that, University itself having allowed them to appear for the 10th semester examination, their results should have been declared. However, a reading of Ext.P1 proceedings of the University by which the petitioners were permitted to appear for the 10th semester examination itself shows that, such permission was granted provisionally and as the results of the supplementary examination were awaited. However, when the results of the supplementary examinations were declared subsequently, the petitioners failed in the supplementary examination and passed WPC.No.29263 /2010 :3 : only in the subsequent supplementary examination held in March and April, 2010. Therefore petitioners having failed in the supplementary examination, Ext.P1 or the permission granted by that order will not entitle the petitioners to contend that the results of their 10th Semester examination should have been declared by the University. 6. Further, it is the admitted case that in terms of the regulations,unless a student has cleared all subjects up to 6th semesters, then and then alone can the student appear in the 10th semester examination. Therefore in this case petitioners did not satisfy that requirement of the regulations. Further on account of the fact that the petitioners did not pass in the supplementary examination held in September, 2009, they cannot also take the advantage of Ext.P1. Therefore, the University cannot be directed to declare the results of the 10th semester examination of the petitioners. 7. It is true that the counsel for the petitioners contended that in certain cases, University has granted such permissions. Even if it is so, having regard to the fact that such permissions are in violation of the regulations, this court will not be justified in WPC.No.29263 /2010 :4 : taking such erroneous permissions as a precedent to order repetition of such errors in future as well. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/