Kerala High Court
University Of Calicut vs Sreeshma K.S on 23 July, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 129 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2024 IN WP(C) NO.36371 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS 1 AND 2:
1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR, PIN - 673635.
2 CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673635.
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SC, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
SREESHMA K.S.,
D/O. SUBRAMONIAM KALLAI HOUSE, BEPUR P.O KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673015.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.SNEHA JOY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.06.2025,
THE COURT ON 23.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the respondents in W.P.(C)No.36371 of 2024, challenging the judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellants were directed to extend the benefit of moderation provided as per Ext.P2 order dated 13.03.2013 bearing UO No.731/2013/CU issued by the 1st appellant to the respondent/writ petitioner in the light of the marks obtained by the respondent in the supplementary examination held in September, 2021 for LLB Five Year Course (2007-2012), within a period of two months.
2. The respondent, a five-year LLB student of the Government Law College, Kozhikode, completed her studies during 2007 - 2012. She studied in the 2000 Scheme, which applies to the students who got admission from the year 2000. She had backlog of some subjects and cleared all the failed subjects in the supplementary examination conducted in September 2021, except one paper in the Fourth Semester viz. History of Courts, Legislature and Legal Profession in India-II. She secured 19 marks out of total 50 in that paper. The minimum mark 3 WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376 required to pass the subject is 25 out of 50. Claiming that in view of Ext.P2 order dated 13.03.2013 issued by the 1st appellant, she is entitled to a moderation of 20 marks which will make her pass in that subject and it was denied to her by the University, she approached this Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The appellants filed a counter-affidavit dated 04.12.2024 in the writ petition, producing therewith Ext.R1(a) document and opposing the prayers in the writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that counter affidavit read thus:
"3. It is submitted that the petitioner was a student of 2007 Admission for Five Year LLB Course in the Government Law College, Kozhikkode. The petitioner appeared for failed papers in one time regular supplementary examination in September 2021. The above examination was conducted to enable the chance exhausted candidates to appear and pass examination. In that examination as well the petitioner failed in the paper LLB104 CP-44 History of Courts, Legislature and Legal Profession in India II' in the Fourth semester. It is submitted that the petitioner secured 19 marks out of 50 for the above paper of Fourth Semester in One-Time Regular Supplementary Examination, September 2021, and failed, since she could not secure minimum pass marks of 25. As per University Order No.731/2013/CU dated 13.03.2013 a maximum moderation of up to 20 marks will be awarded to those candidates (who have completed the LL.B course - old 4 WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376 scheme without internal assessment) and have failed only in a single paper in all of the semesters and have scored 30% marks in relevant paper for the finalisation of the result. The true copy of the University Order dated 13/3/2013 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a).
4. It is submitted that the University order granting special moderation is applicable only for Regular and supplementary candidates and not for the special supplementary/One Time Regular Supplementary candidates. Moderation is not granted to candidates who appeared for One Time Regular Supplementary Examinations as per the Regulation of the Special Supplementary Examination/One-Time Regular Supplementary Examinations. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for special moderation to One-Time Regular Supplementary Examination, September 2021 for paper LLB404 CP-44 HISTORY OF COURTS, LEGISLATURE AND LEGAL PROFESSION IN INDIA II of Fourth Semester.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed in the following papers, and appeared for one time regular supplementary examination, which was extended to chance exhausted candidates. The papers failed in regular and supplementary examinations are i. LLB204 CP-36 INDIAN HISTORY II ii. LLB403 CP-43 ECONOMICS III iii. LLB404 CP-44 HISTORY OF COURTS, LEGISLATURE AND LEGAL PROFESSION IN INDIA II iv. LLB803 CP-20 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. LLB901 CP-22 INTERNATIONAL LAW vi. LLBX03 CP-27 ARBITRATION CONCILIATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS 5 WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376 vii. LLBX05 OP-04 TAXATION LAW II Even in the chance exhausted opportunity the petitioner failed the paper "LLB404 CP-44 HISTORY OF COURTS, LEGISLATURE AND LEGAL PROFESSION IN INDIA II of Fourth Semester"."
4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the moderation decided to be given by the University by virtue of Ext.P2 decision is only to the students who failed in one subject in regular and supplementary examinations, and not for the special supplementary/one-time regular supplementary examinations. The respondent herein failed in 7 papers in her previous Semester examinations and cleared 6 such papers in one time regular supplementary examination held in September 2021. She is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Ext.P2 order. Ext.P4 judgment dated 10.07.2015 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.17524 of 2015 relied by the respondent is not followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 14.12.2016 in W.A.No.2420 of 2016. The learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate these facts while allowing the writ petition.
6
WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner argued that in Ext.P2, only 4 criterias are mentioned for granting the benefit of moderation. The respondent fulfils these criteria and hence, merely for the reason that she appeared for one-time regular supplementary examination, the benefit cannot be denied to her. The learned counsel relied on Ext.P4 judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in support of the above argument. By relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner, Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Patna v. M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. [AIR 2023 SC 5153] and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sasidharan O.V. v. Union of India [2025 (1) KLT 151], the learned counsel argued that when the language of a provision is plain and clear, there is no necessity to go for any other interpretation.
7. The respondent/writ petitioner had a backlog of 7 subjects while she appeared for one-time regular supplementary examination held in September 2021. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition as well as in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellants, the names of those papers are mentioned. She cleared 6 papers and failed in the paper 'History of Courts, 7 WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376 Legislature and Legal Profession in India-II' in that examination. For the failed paper, she secured 19 marks out of 50.
8. The relevant portion of Ext.P2 order UO No.731/2013/CU dated 13.03.2013 issued by the University reads thus:
"As per paper read as first above, EPR Section, Pareeksha Bhavan has informed that the Vice Chancellor had ordered to place the request of the LL.B students for graning special moderation on the ground of moderation granted to B.Tech students, before the Board of Studies, Faculty and the Academic Council.
Vide paper read as second above, the Board of Studies in Law (UG) held on 07.11.2012 examined the representation submitted by the candidates for granting a moderation in the line of the moderation granted to B.Tech students as per Order No.PW/JCE/B.Tech/Misc/2012 (SF) dated 12.06.2012. The Board also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 06.08.2012 and the reference made by the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor to the Board vide U.O Note read as first above in this regard. The Board Unanimously decided to recommend granting of special moderation to candidates, who have completed the LL.B course (old scheme without internal assessment), but stands failed only in a single paper, in all of the semesters and only for the finalization of the result. The Board suggested that moderation may be awarded to candidates who have secured 30% marks in the relevant paper subject to a maximum of 20 marks and 8 WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376 moderation may be made applicable only in the case of external examinations.
As per paper read as third above, the Faculty of Law at its meeting held on 09.01.2013 unanimously approved the above resolution of Board of Studies in Law (UG) held on 07.11.2012 vide item. No.1 with regard to granting special moderation to LLB students (old scheme without internal assessment), which was approved by the Academic Council, Vide paper read as fourth above.
Sanction is therefore accorded to implement the above decision of the Board of Studies in Law (UG) held on 07.11.2012 approved by Faculty and the Academic Council and following orders are issued.
1. A maximum moderation upto 20 marks will be awarded to those candidates (who have completed the LL.B course - old scheme without internal assessment) and have failed only in a single paper in all of the semesters and have scored 30% marks in relevant paper for the finalisation of the result.
2. The moderation will be applicable only in the case of external examinations.
Orders are issued accordingly."
9. The respondent claims the benefit of Ext.P2 order, contending that she failed only in a single paper in the last examination attended by her. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellants, it is stated that Ext.P2 order is applicable to the students who appear in regular and supplementary examinations, and not to the students who appear for one-time regular 9 WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376 supplementary examination. In Ext.P4 judgment dated 10.07.2015 in W.P.(C)No.17524 of 2015, a learned single judge of this Court held that the students who are appearing in the supplementary examination are also entitled to the moderations as provided in Ext.P2. However, while going through Ext.P2 order of the University, we notice that the order is silent about the moderation to the students who appeared in the supplementary examination.
10. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, Ext.P4 judgment is not followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 14.12.2016 in W.A.No.2420 of 2016. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of that judgment read thus:
"7. It is no doubt true that this Court in the said judgment passed in W.P(C). No.17524 of 2015 has observed that if the University was against granting moderation to the students who appeared in supplementary examination, they should have issued orders clarifying the position. As long as there is no exclusion of supplementary students in Ext.P2 order, the only logical conclusion that can be arrived at is that the students who are appearing in supplementary examinations are also entitled to the moderations as provided in Ext.P1.
8. With great respect, we are unable to subscribe to the same view. We have gone through Ext.P2 order carefully. In paragraph 2 of the said order, it is abundantly clear that the Board unanimously decided to recommend granting of special 10 WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376 moderation to candidates who have completed the LL.B course (Old Scheme without internal assessment), but stands failed only in a single paper in all of the semesters.
9. It is clear that in case a student has failed only in a single paper in all of the semesters, the benefit of Ext.P2 would be granted. In the matter on hand, it is not in dispute that the appellant has failed in many subjects in different semesters. For eg., Ex.P1 series of documents can be looked into. These documents make it clear that the appellant had failed in five subjects of IXth semester examinations held in the month of April, 2012. He had also failed in four subjects in the IXth semester examination held in the month of March 2013. So also, he had failed in three subjects in the supplementary examination of IXth semester held in the month of November 2013. All these facts would clearly show that the petitioner has repeatedly failed in several subjects in different semesters. Ultimately, after several attempts, he had got through the papers in supplementary examinations repeatedly held. As of now, the Labour Law - 1 of IXth semester still remains to be passed by him. The intention of the University was to help the students who have passed all the papers in an attempt, but has failed only in one subject by getting 30% marks. Such students alone should be given the benefit of Ext.P2 order. Under the facts and circumstances the appellant is not entitled to the said benefit. Consequently, no interference is called for."
11. A reading of Ext.P2 would make it clear that the intention behind that order is to give the benefit of moderation in the case of a student who failed in a single paper in all the 11 WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376 Semesters. But in the instant case the respondent failed in 7 papers and she could clear 6 papers in the one-time regular supplementary examination held in September, 2021. The benefit of Ext.P2 can be given only to a student who completed the LLB course in old scheme, but failed in a single paper in all the semesters. Therefore, we agree with the finding of the Division Bench in the judgment in W.A.No.2420 of 2016 that the intention of the University was to help the students, who have passed all the papers in an attempt; but have failed only one subject by getting 30% mark. The language of Ext.P2 is very clear and hence, the judgment of the Apex Court in Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. [AIR 2023 SC 5153] and that of the Division Bench of this Court in Sasidharan O.V. [2025 (1) KLT 151], cannot be pressed into service in the instant case.
12. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the above aspects, while allowing the writ petition. Therefore, the appellants have made out sufficient ground to allow the writ appeal. 12
WA NO. 129 OF 2025 2025:KER:54376 In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.(C)No.36371 of 2024 and the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-