IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33622 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BIJU THOMAS, S/O.K.J.THOMAS, KATTAPPURATH NEELETHIL, MEPRAL PO, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SRI.SHINDO VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 686560. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM 686560. 3 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM 686560. SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33622/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 4.3.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.8.08 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT INW PC NO.23292/2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 24.9.2008 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.1.09 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.35421/2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.1.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY of THE ORDER DT 6.3.2009 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2010 IN WPC NO.27052.2009B. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 14.11.11 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFICER AND JOINT REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 11.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33622 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner completed B.Sc Electronics Degree Course during the academic year 1996-99 from the Mar Augustinose College, Ramapuram in Kottayam District, which is affiliated to the 1st respondent University. He has not so far passed four papers each of 2nd and 4th semesters. In the meanwhile, the scheme also has changed. Presently, petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9, the rejection order passed by the University rejecting his request for another mercy chance under the old scheme. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the University can conduct yet another examination and that no prejudice will be caused to anybody else. It is also submitted that in Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed that his request shall be considered sympathetically and that if such consideration was given, University could not have rejected his request. 3. However, standing counsel for the University submits that as per the Regulations of the University, a student is required to complete the course successfully within five years. It is WPC No.33622/11 :2 : submitted that the petitioner having completed the course in 1999, the five year period had expired long ago. It is also pointed out that subsequent to 1999, the scheme itself has changed and that there are no regulations in the University enabling a student to migrate from the old scheme to the new scheme. 4. I have considered the submissions made. 5. As already seen, under the Regulations framed by the University, which is not under challenge, a student is required to complete the course successfully within five years from the year of completion of the course. In this case, petitioner having completed the course in 1999, the five year period prescribed in the Regulations has expired long ago. Therefore, at this distance of time, he has no legal right to require the University to permit him to appear for another examination or to give him a mercy chance. 6. That apart, it is the admitted fact that the scheme has undergone change subsequent to 1999. In such a scenario, unless the regulations of the University permit migration from old scheme to new scheme, the petitioner cannot demand that he should be permitted to appear for the examination under the new WPC No.33622/11 :3 : scheme also. In such circumstances, the view taken by the University cannot be said to be illegal. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp