IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38001 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MUHZINA P. HAMSA, D/O.P.HAMZA, 24 YEARS, PILLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM-679321. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KERALA-670567. 2. THE CENTURY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, PONACHI, P.O. THEKKIL, VIA. CHENGALA, KASARAGOD-671541. 3. UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, REP. BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR, KANNUR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KERALA-670567. R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE, SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.38001/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST DTD. 12.11.2010 P2:- COPIES OF THE INTERNAL MARK SHEETS (IST AND SECOND) P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23.11.2010 SENT BY PETITINER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN VERSION OF THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. NIL. P5:- COPY OF THE REPLY SENT TO THE PRINCIPAL CENTURY DENTAL COLLEGE, PAINACHI DTD. 24.11.2010. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER (WRONGLY) DT. AS 24.9.2010 SENT TO THE CONTROLLER OF EXAM, KANNUR UNIVERSITY. P7:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 13.12.2010 ISSUED BY ASST. REGISTRAR (EXAM). TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.38001 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a regular student of the second respondent College for the BDS Course. She appeared for the final year BDS Part II examination conducted by the Kannur University in June, 2010. The result of the examination was published on 12.11.2010. The petitioner failed in the examination. When the mark list was issued the petitioner noticed that she was awarded only 8 marks out of 25 as internal marks for Clinical and Practical for the subject Prosthodontics. She thereupon made enquiries and came to know from the college authorities that the University had adopted the internal marks awarded to her in the second internal examination and that was the reason why she was awarded only 8 marks out of 25 as internal marks. It is stated that in the first internal examination the petitioner was awarded 14 marks out of 25 and in the second internal examination she was awarded only 8 marks out of 25 and that the practice in the University is to adopt the best of the W.P(C).No.38001 of 2010 -:2:- marks as the internal marks. 2. Aggrieved by the award of only 8 marks out of 25 as internal marks for Clinical and Practical for the subject Prosthodontics, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 petition before the Principal of the College, who in turn made Ext.P4 endorsement thereon and forwarded it to the Professor and Head of Department of Prosthodontics. The Head of the Department in turn sent Ext.P5 letter to the Principal informing him of the fact that in the first internal examination the petitioner was awarded 14 marks out of 25 marks and in the second internal examination 8 marks out of 25 marks, and that instead of adopting the best of the two marks, the University was informed mistakenly that the internal marks awarded to the petitioner is only 8 marks out of 25. The Principal of the College in turn forwarded Exts.P4 and P5 letters to the Controller of Examinations, Kannur University along with Ext.P6 letter dated 24.9.2010 with a request to correct the internal marks awarded to the petitioner. The University in turn informed the Principal and the petitioner that after the results are published a request to change the internal assessment marks cannot be considered favourably. Ext.P7 is under challenge in this W.P(C).No.38001 of 2010 -:3:- writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a direction to the Controller of Examinations, University of Kannur to correct Ext.P1 mark list by substituting the internal assessment marks awarded to the petitioner for Prosthodontics (Clinical and Practical) as 14 out of 25 instead of 8 out of 25. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Kannur University has filed a statement dated 10.1.2011. In paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof it is stated as follows:- “3. It is submitted that as per the procedure, before sending the internal assessment marks to the University, the internal assessment marks awarded shall be displayed on the notice board of institution. The complaints if any, have to be registered to the Head of the Department concerned within a prescribed time limit at the College level. The complaints shall be examined by grievance Cell, comprising Head of the Department/ Department Level Committee and only after rectifying the defect, if any, shall be forwarded to the University through Principal after proper attestation. The statement of the internal assessment marks of all the candidates attested by the Head of the Department shall be counter signed by the Principal and W.P(C).No.38001 of 2010 -:4:- forwarded to the University. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a complaint only after the publication of the results on 23.11.2010. On verification by the University, the petitioner had not submitted any complaint to the Head of the Department or to the Principal in writing earlier at the time of display of the marks of internal assessment on the notice board at the College level. It is unfair practice and make room for alteration of results based on internal assessment marks which was awarded by the faculty at the College level. Hence there is no merit in the contentions raised in the writ petition and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.” The stand taken by the University is that if at all there is a mistake in the internal assessment marks it should have been noticed and a complaint registered with the Head of the Department after the internal assessment marks were published on the notice board of the College. It is stated that in the instant case the petitioner raised a complaint only after the results were published and therefore the request cannot be entertained as it can lead to unfair practices. The second respondent has not filed a statement or a counter affidavit. However, Sri.A.Mohamed W.P(C).No.38001 of 2010 -:5:- Mustaque, learned counsel appearing for the College, submitted that when the internal assessment marks of the final year BDS students were forwarded, the College authorities committed a mistake and that instead of forwarding the marks of both internal examinations, the College should have forwarded only the best out of the two marks, that is 14 out of 25. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Sri.P.Gopinath Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent College. Ext.P1 mark list discloses that the petitioner was awarded 20 marks out of 50 as internal assessment marks in respect of theory paper and 8 marks out of 25 as internal assessment marks for Clinical and Practical for the subject Prosthodontics. The petitioner has passed all the other papers of the final year examination and all the other examinations. But for the low internal marks reflected in Ext.P4 she would have passed the final year BDS examination. The explanation offered by the College is that instead of awarding the best of the two marks secured by the petitioner, the marks W.P(C).No.38001 of 2010 -:6:- secured by the petitioner in the last internal examination was adopted. The University does not dispute the fact that the best of the two marks have to be forwarded to the University. The only ground stated by the University is that after the results are declared the request for correcting the internal assessment marks cannot be considered favourably. In the absence of any challenge by the University to the assertion made by the petitioner and the College that the better of the two marks ought to have been adopted and as the University does not dispute the fact that the better of the two marks is 14 out of 25, I am of the opinion that the University should have accepted the explanation offered by the College authorities and awarded to the petitioner the better of the two marks, namely, 14 out of 25 as internal assessment marks for Clinical and Practical in the subject Prosthodontics. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 3 to rectify the mistake in Ext.P1 mark list by awarding 14 out of 25 marks as internal assessment marks for Clinical and Practical in the subject Prosthodontics. The petitioner shall, to enable the University to act as directed above, W.P(C).No.38001 of 2010 -:7:- surrender the original of Ext.P1 mark list before the first respondent along with a certified copy of this judgment. The first respondent shall thereupon issue a revised mark list after cancelling the original of Ext.P1. The University shall also simultaneously cause necessary entries to be made in the records to the effect that the petitioner has passed the final year BDS Examination. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.38001 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 19th January, 2011