IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 7981 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. KISHOR KUMAR P.G., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. Y.P.MANI, RESIDING AT RESHMI, VAZHUTHOOR, KOOTTAPPANA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MOHAMMED SUHAIL, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.C.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SALSABEEL, PARAL P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR. 3. MOHAMMED FAISAL M., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY M., RESIDING AT MOOTHEDATH, VENGADU MALAPPURAM. 4. MUKESH M., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. MUKUNDAN T., RESIDING AT SUKRUTHAM, MATHAMANGALAM BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.C.V.MANUVILSAN, MR.E.C.BINEESH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, KANNUR UNIVERSITY. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY MR.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7981/2008-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13/02/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.31012/2006 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE U.O. NO. ACAD/C3/2871/2003 DTD.09/11/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER VIDE U.O. NO. ACAD/C3/5812/2007 DTD. 01/02/2008. EXT.P.4; COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.AC.A1/B.TECH SELF FINANCING /2005 PF DTD. 25/10/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 7981 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners have completed B.Tech degree course from Government Engineering College, Kannur. They did not get pass marks in some papers. In those subjects, their marks for internal assessment were very low. As per the scheme of examinations of the 1st respondent- University, for the particular examination, no separate minimum is prescribed either for internal examination or for external examination. Total marks prescribed for internal examination is 50 and those for external examination is 100. But, a candidate for passing the examination should score a minimum of 50% of the total marks of 150. The petitioners requested for permitting them to appear for improvement examination for the internal assessment marks by undergoing the course for the subjects again. However, since there were no clear cut guidelines in the matter issued by the University, the request was not entertained and on some of the petitioners approaching this Court, this Court by order dated 13-2- 2007 issued a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the prayer of the petitioners in that writ petition. Accordingly, the Academic Council of the University issued an order dated 9-11-2007 to the effect that “students of B. Tech course of 2002 admission can improve their internal assessment only by attending course/paper by registering in the respective semester.” However, the college authorities did not forward the application for improvement to the University for registration on the reasoning that the University is proposing to issue one more order on the subject. Thereafter, the University appears to have issued another order clarifying that reappearance for improvement of internal assessment marks is permitted only in the case of subjects/papers for which a separate pass minimum is prescribed for internal marks. The petitioners have altogether 59 W.P.C. No. 7981/2008. -: 2 :- papers including laboratory works, out of which, there are no University examinations for five subjects, namely, Seminar, Project, Mini Project, 1st Lab and 2nd Lab. For the said five subjects, the prescribed minimum marks for internal examination are 35 marks out of 50. For the other 54 subjects, internal examination is a part of the University examination. But no separate minimum marks are prescribed for internal examination. Accordingly, the petitioners were denied the right to improve their internal examination marks for 54 subjects, for which there is no prescribed minimum marks for internal examination. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P3 modified order as illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners for improving any of their internal assessment marks from the whole subjects. (iii) Declare that University has no right to deny the opportunity of the petitioners to improve the internal assessment marks from any of their subjects.” 2. The learned standing counsel for the University argued in support of the orders of the University restricting the right to appear for improvement examination for internal assessment only for those subjects for which a separate minimum for a pass is prescribed for internal examination. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. It is not disputed before me by the counsel for the University that in respect of these 54 subjects, no separate minimum marks are prescribed for a pass either in the internal examination or in the external examination. Only minimum marks for the total of both internal and external examinations put together are prescribed. It is also not disputed before me that a candidate who wish to improve the marks for the external examination can write the improvement W.P.C. No. 7981/2008. -: 3 :- examination. As such, there is no logic in the orders of the University, whereby the facility for appearance in improvement examination for internal examination is restricted to only those subjects for which separate minimum marks are prescribed for internal examination. Even otherwise, there is no logic in that prescription. Improvement examination is prescribed to enable a student to get higher marks for the examination, which he has already passed. If that be so, the prescription of facility for improvement examination only for those subjects for which minimum marks are prescribed for a pass does not have any relevance or logic. Therefore, I am of opinion that the particular prescription is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable. Accordingly, that prescription in Ext. P3 modified order of the University is set aside. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to appear for improvement examination for the internal examination also notwithstanding the fact that no separate minimum is prescribed for pass om the internal examination. However, I make it clear that for appearing for the improvement examination, they will have to undergo the course in the particular subject for the semesters again. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/