IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 2266 of 2007(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RUGMA S., TC.21/1602, SREE VALSAM, NEDUNCADU, KARAMANA P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 002. 2. ARJUN T.N., TC.38/729, MARAKKADA ROAD, CHALAI, TRIVANDRUM-695 036. 3. ARUN MANOHAR M.R., TC.3/2362, VAIKUKNDAM, CNRA 32, CHITRA NAGAR, PATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 4. ASHOK B.MATHEWS, KARUMENKOTTY, EVERGREEN ESTATE, CHENKULAM P.O., OYOUR, KOLLAM-691 510. 5. SEENA SUKUMARAN, KOTTARAMPARAMBIL, PALACE WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 011. 6. MITHIL CHANDRAN N.C., ARANGATT, F11/81, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 008. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN KERALA, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CO-ORDINATOR, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN KERALA, ALAPPUZHA CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA-688 003. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON 09/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 2266/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.5.8.05. P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.23.10.2006. P3. COPY OF THE REGULATION REGARDING P.G. PROGRAMME. P4. COPY OF THE PERMISSION REGARDING PROJECT WORK TO P3. P4A. COPY OF THE -DO- P5. P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.1.8.07. P6. COPY OF THE NOTICE BY R2. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE REGULATIONS OF C.S.S. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.2266 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are students of MBA course conducted by the 2nd respondent which is affiliated to the University of Kerala. In the second semester examination of the course, the petitioners failed. As per the curriculum, the examination consists of two parts. One is Continuous Assessment (CA) and the other is End Semester Assessment (ESA). The students are expected to score minimum of 50 per cent marks in the aggregate for both Continuous Assessment and End Semester Assessment. If they fail in the examination, they can write the next supplementary examination, which they have to pass while continuing the course in the next semester. But if they fail in the supplementary examination, they have to undergo continuous assessment and end semester assessment again by redoing the previous semester. 2. The petitioners in this case failed in the regular examination for the second semester. They wrote the supplementary examination and again failed. They filed this writ petition complaining of irregularity in the matter of evaluation of their examination papers. Subsequently, under orders from this Court, they wrote the End Semester Assessment examination for the 2nd semester again and passed. They now seek carrying forward the Continuous Assessment w.p.c.2266/07 2 marks secured by them also in the first instance and add the same to the marks of the End Semester Assessment examination secured in the third attempt. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that this cannot be permitted since as per the regulations, once a candidate fails in the supplementary examination also, he has to redo the semester undergoing Continuous Assessment and End Semester Assessment. 4. After hearing at length, the counsel for the petitioners submits that the University may be directed to consider the petitioners' case in the light of the averments made in the writ petition. Learned standing counsel for the University submits that if a suitable representation is filed by the petitioners in that regard, the 1st respondent would consider the same in accordance with law. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioners shall file a suitable representation before the 1st respondent within two weeks from today. Thereupon, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month thereafter. I am of opinion that it is more appropriate that the Vice Chancellor considers the representation. Accordingly, the w.p.c.2266/07 3 representation shall be filed before the Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor shall consider and pass orders on the same as directed above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge