IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 25941 of 2008(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SHINY G. BENJAMIN, MATHA HOUSE T.C. 5/695, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, ASSEMBLY COMPLEX, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO.25941/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PASS BOARD. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.2464/07 FILED BY IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 25.2.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE DECISION DT. 18.4.08 OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXAMINATION. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 25.6.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25941 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to direct the petitioner-University to award moderation marks to the 1st respondent. The interpretation of Ext. P1 decision of the Pass Board is also one of the issue involved. In an identical case, namely, W.P(C) No.26329/2008, the very same questions have been decided by me thus: “The petitioner herein is the University of Kerala. They are challenging Exts. P3 and P5 orders of the Kerala Lok ayukta directing the university to award moderation marks to the 1st respondent for passing the B.A.Part III English Literature conducted by the petitioner in 2007. The petitioner complained before the Lokayukta that although all the other candidates were given moderation he was denied the same which amounts to discrimination, which was accepted by the Lokayukta. According to the University the Pass Board decided to give 12 marks as moderation for a first class, second class and 3rd class and the said benefit is not available to those who have appeared for the examination compartmentally who would not be certified as having obtained any first class, second class or third class. The petitioner being a person who appeared for the examination compartmentally is therefore not eligible for moderation marks is the contention of the university. They would contend that the decision of the university, in any event, does not amount to maladministration without which the Lokayukta would not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 2. The 1st respondent submits that he was short by one mark for a pass in the examination, but he admits that he appeared for the examination compartmentally. His contention is that pass in the examination amounts to a third class and therefore moderation is available for securing pass marks also. According to the first respondent, denial of moderation marks to the first respondent amounts to maladministration by the University. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The moderation marks were awarded as per Ext.P1 decision of the Pass Board which reads thus: “ The board unanimously decided to give 12 marks as moderation for a first class, second class and third class. The W.P.C. No. 25941/2008 -: 2 :- board also decided to award 2 marks for the subsidiary subject namely History of English literature. No moderation mark is to be given for the subsidiary subjects namely American literature and Indian literature in English.” It is not disputed before me that those who passes the examination compartmentally would not be given a certificate showing that they have passed the examination in third class. Ext. P1 shows that the Board decided to give moderation marks only for a first, second and a third class. Of course those who secures third class would also only pass the examination. But both interpretations are equally possible. When two interpretations are possible and the University has adopted one interpretation it cannot be said the University is guilty of maladministration. Lok Ayukta can entertain a complaint only if there is maladministration. As such the Lok Ayukta did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the 1st respondent. That being so Exts.P3 & P5 orders of the second respondent are clearly without jurisdiction. Accordingly they are quashed. However I make it clear that the first respondent is free to take appropriate other proceedings in the matter for getting moderation marks, if he still maintains that he is entitled to moderation marks. The writ petition is disposed of as above.” The said judgment applies to the facts of this case also. Accordingly, following that judgment, Exts. P3 and P5 orders are quashed. However, this would not stand in the way of the 1st respondent seeking appropriate other remedies available to her. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/