IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35308 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------- BASIL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. AMANULLA, ROSE HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.S.VIJI RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35308 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner passed B.Tech Computer Science with 61.72% marks. He was awarded second class only. In this writ petition he prays that in the light of Exhibit P2 order, he is entitled to get first class, since the Lateral Entry students have been exempted from appearing for the two remedial papers. 2. However, in the counter affidavit that has been filed by the University, it is pointed out that the petitioner studied the course during the academic years 2002-2006, and that Exhibit P2, amendment was effected only with effect from 22/05/2008. The University therefore points out that since Exhibit P2 amendment has come much after the completion of the course, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Exhibit P2 and that he is governed by the regulations which were in force at the time when the petitioner undertook the course. 3. Exhibit P2 is dated 22/05/2008 and is of prospective effect. Since the academic years of petitioner is 2002-2006 he has to W.P.(C) No. 35308/ 2008 2 be governed by the regulations which held the field at that time. If that be so, petitioner is not entitled to the claim in this writ petition and that action of University in awarding second class to the petitioner applying the rules prevailing at the relevant period is unassailable. This writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm