IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 6292 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- NYZAM OMAR.M.S, S/O.SALIM,AGED 23 YRS, HOUSE NO.27,SRINGAR, TC NO.41/1573,MANACAUD.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,UNIVERSITY BLDNG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT, OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,BARTON HILL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.6292/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION INDICATING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS REPRESENTED THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE YEAR 2003-04. P2:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION INDICATING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS REPRESENTED THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005. P3:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION INDICATING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS REPRESENTED THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE YEAR 2005-2006. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.D1.1.1276/SPORT/GRACE MARKS /2007 DTD. 7.9.07. P5:- COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DT. 30.6.2004. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 22372/04 DTD. 24.5.2004. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.D1.3.1276/02 DTD. 3.10.2005. P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19.9.2007 RO THE IST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 19.9.2007 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P10:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 3.3.2008 TO THE IST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P11:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19.9.07 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.DPE/G2/GM/2003 /04 DTD. 13.12.2005 DIRECTING THE UNIVERSITY AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE GRACE MARKS FOR THE YEAR 2003-04. P13:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 4724/2008 DTD. 24.5.2005. P14:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 30690/2008 DTD. 7.11.2008. W.P.(C) NO.6292/2009 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 15.10.07. R1(b):- COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR AWARDING GRACE MARK IN SPORTS. R1(c):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING DT.D 10.12.2008. R1(d):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 30.12.08. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 6292 of 2009-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT The matter concerns the claim for grant of grace marks as applicable to sportsmen representing the University in various events, for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. 2. The petitioner was a student for B.Tech course in Information Technology at the third respondent College for the academic year 2003- 2007. Exts.P1 to P3 are certificates indicating that the petitioner had represented the University for the above three years in the South Zone Inter University Cricket. Ext.P4 is the guidelines issued by the University in the matter of grant of grace marks. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was entitled to grace marks upto 5%, going by Ext.P4. 3. The University withdrew the benefit of granting grace marks by Ext.P5. Later, the stand was changed in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22372/2004, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P6. Ext.P7 is the University order granting the benefit based on Ext.P6 judgment. The decision taken by the Syndicate therein is to award grace marks to the students of B.Tech and PG Courses Semester/non Semester wpc 6292/2009 2 who are excellent in sports and games during the period from 27.5.2003 to 1.11.2004 and as recommended by the Department of Physical Education. 4. The petitioner's representations have been produced as Exts.P8 to P10 which were submitted to the Physical Education Director, the Controller of Examinations, University of Kerala and the Vice Chancellor of the University. Ext.P11 shows that the Director of Physical Education has found that the petitioner is eligible for grace marks as per the University orders and accordingly it was requested that he may be granted grace marks. Ext.P12 shows that recommendation has been made for grant of grace marks upto 4%. Ext.P12 is a communication addressed by the Director of Physical Education to the Controller of Examinations. The same is for the year 2003-2004. 5. The University has filed a counter affidavit. 6. As far as the year 2003-2004 is concerned, now in the light of Ext.P12, the University will have to grant the same. But with respect to the remaining years the stand taken by the University is that there is no proper application on the part of the petitioner. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the University, going by Ext.R1(b) guidelines, the applications will have to be submitted before 31st May of the succeeding year. The minutes of the Standing Committee is produced as Ext.R1(c), wherein they wpc 6292/2009 3 rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of the benefits. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as the two academic years, viz. 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 are concerned, the University has taken a decision not to grant the benefit, which was under challenge before this Court in various writ petitions. It is therefore submitted that in the light of the judgments rendered by this Court in similar circumstances, the decision of the University is arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled for the benefits. It is therefore submitted that the absence of any application for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 is immaterial. My attention was also drawn to the operative portions of Exts.P13 and P14 judgments, wherein this Court allowed the petitioners there into furnish appropriate applications with all the necessary documents, to the Director of Physical Education who was directed to pass orders thereon. The fact that the petitioner was part of the team, is not in dispute. Ext.P4 is dated 7.9.2007. It is true that going by para 5 there is a stipulation that the students shall claim the Grace Marks within one year after the end of the academic year. Herein, we are concerned with the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. Evidently, the stipulation contained in Ext.P4 can have application only in future years alone. Therefore, the condition provided in para 5 of Ext.P4 could not have been applied to the wpc 6292/2009 4 disadvantage of the petitioner. Hence, the decision taken by the University as per Exts.R1(b) and © cannot be supported. 8. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is allowed to submit proper applications to the Director of Physical Education who will have to examine the eligibility of the petitioner and communicate the decision to the University, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the applications. The University will have to take an appropriate decision within one month thereafter. With regard to the year 2003-2004, as already Ext.P12 has been communicated to the University, the same will be implemented without further delay. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/