IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20281 of 2009(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. M.HASIM, S/O.MOOSA, NEAR JUMA MASJID, ARIKKADY, KUMBHALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. M.V.KRISHNA RAJ, S/O.P.PRABHAKARAN, KRISHNAMRITHAM, P.O.IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. V.NIKESH, S/O.SADANANDAN P., PUTHALATH HOUSE, KOTTARATHUMPARA, AZHIKODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.P.M.PAREETH MR.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR 670 567. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR 670 567. 3. CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF 4TH SEMESTER MBA EXAMINATIONS (JULY 2008), KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR 670567. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 20281 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioners have completed the 4th Semester in Master of Business Administration (MBA) from the first respondent University in the year 2008. The results were originally published as Ext.P4. Petitioners were treated as passed in 4th Semester Examination but when mark list Ext.P5 series were obtained, it was found that petitioners 1 to 3 were short by 2 marks in viva voce and the second petitioner was short by one mark for the project report. Separate minimum of 50% is required in viva voce and project report taken together apart from theory examinations. According to the petitioners, the Chairman third respondent, who also chaired the committee that had interviewed the petitioner and other candidates had recommended moderation to be given to those persons who are found short by few marks in viva voce and project report. But this has not been accepted by the University and hence this writ petition. W.P.(C). No. 20281 OF 2009 2 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 3. Para 3 to 5 of the said statement reads as follows:- “ 3. It is clear from Ext.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) mark list issued to the petitioners that none of them have fulfilled the pass conditions vis- a vis the project report and viva voce. The 1st petitioner with register No.5152 secured only 48 marks for viva voce instead of minimum required pass mark of 50 and the second petitioner with register No.5154 has got only 49 and 48 marks respectively for the project report and viva voce against the required minimum of 50 marks each. The 3rd petitioner with register No.5158 got only 48 marks for viva voce instead of the required minimum of 50 marks. It is submitted that the benefit of moderation is given only to the theory paper and the same cannot be extended to internal examination or viva voce or project report. This is the general rule strictly followed by the University for all the UG, PG and Professional Course. Moreover the marks of viva voce and project report awarded by the Board of Examiners cannot be modified by the University. 4. In this case when the results were announced the petitioners were included in the provisional list of successful candidates by mistake and the mark list were issued to them with the grant total. However the mistake on the part of the University does not entitle them for getting the privilege of minimum pass marks as they have not W.P.(C). No. 20281 OF 2009 3 obtained minimum pass marks prescribed for the project report and viva voce which is evident from the Ext.P5 to P5(b) mark list issued to the petitioner. The mark list entered in the respective column of the tabulation register, tally with original marks scored by the candidates. 5. It is also submitted that the standing committee on examination and discipline examined the case of the petitioners in detail and declared that the request of the petitioner is not entitled to be allowed it will scuttle the entire process of evaluation and in total violation of the Regulations, University Rules and conduct of examination.” 4. I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the University. There are no guidelines or regulations which compells the University to give moderation for any paper either in theory or in viva voce or for that matter, in the project report. Moderation is a method which is adopted when it is found that the number of candidates, who have failed in any particular subject is excessive and a better result could therefore be obtained if the benefit of moderation is given to a few candidates. I find force in the submission made by the Counsel for the respondent that normally the benefit of W.P.(C). No. 20281 OF 2009 4 moderation is not afforded, in relation to viva voce and project report. 5. At any rate, the Standing Committee of the University has taken a decision not to give moderation in relation to viva voce and project report. There is nothing illegal or unjustified about the said decision. I find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/