IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 253 of 2007 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3981/2007 Dated 06/02/2007 ................................. APPELLANT: PETITIONER -------------------------------------- AMBILY THANKAPPAN, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. THANKAPPAN KURUP, 1ST YEAR MBA STUDENT, SREE NARAYANA GURU INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SREE NARAYANA GURU INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.ASWAS SRI.ANIL KUMAR SREEDHARAN SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.253 OF 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 4th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant/petitioner is a first year MBA student of the third respondent University. She received only 49.8% marks in the Degree Examination whereas 50% marks are required to appear for MBA examination. It is the contention of the appellant that marks can be rounded off and 49.5% marks should be considered as 50% marks, the minimum marks required to get admission for MBA course. Maximum marks in the Degree Examination is 1400. The minimum marks required to appear for MBA examination is 700. She got 698 marks, that means two marks less to get 50% marks. So, she has not obtained the minimum eligibility marks. The contention of the appellant is that it is the percentage of marks that counts and not the actual marks. If it is measured in percentage, she obtained 49.8% marks and also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another v. Asha Mehta ((1997) 11 SCC 410). In that case, Apex Court noticed that consistent practice of the Punjab Public Service Commission was to round off 32.5% marks to 33%. Therefore, selection given to candidates by such method was not interfered by the Supreme Court and held that WA.253/2007 2 that is purely an arithmetical calculation. Supreme Court refused to interfere in the same. If the University has taken a stand that 49.5% or above can be rounded off and taken as 50% in all cases, we would not have interfered in that matter in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, the consistant practice of the University is otherwise. The minimum marks required is 700 (50%) out of 1400. The appellant got only 698 marks, i.e., two marks less than the required marks. We cannot hold that she got minimum 50% marks by rounding off unless there was practice in the University to that effect or regulations requires so. We see no error in the decision of the learned single Judge. Learned counsel for the University submitted that when the interim order was issued in the writ appeal on 27.7.2007 allowing her to appear for the second semester MBA examination, she was provisionally allowed to appear for the examination with conditions that University shall not announce the results and that appellant shall not plead equities at the time of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, merely because interim order was issued allowing her to write the second semester examination at her own risk, she will not be entitled to write the final examination. WA.253/2007 3 Academic standards fixed by the University cannot be diluted by this court. However, we note that she, having studied up to three years and nearly completing the course and studied obtaining bank loan etc., if she files an application before the University, it is for the University to relax the marks as a special case without creating precedent. It is a matter for the University to decide. If such an application is pending or filed, it should be considered by the University expeditiously. With the above observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks