Vinod Subhash vs Mahatma Gandhi University
2021 Latest Caselaw 148 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                   &

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

       TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

                           WA.No.1732 OF 2020

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2020 IN WP(C) 17702/2020(K) OF HIGH
                          COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

              VINOD SUBHASH
              AGED 25 YEARS
              S/O.SUBHASH, ORAVUMTHURUTHI HOUSE, KALADY P.O.,
              ERNAKULAM-683 574.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD
              SHRI.T.R.VISHNU

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

       1      MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
              REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILL, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
              KOTTAYAM-686560.

       2      THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
              MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILL,
              ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 560.

       3      THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
              MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILL,
              ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560.

       4      BHARATA MATA SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES (BSOLS),
              REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, CHOONDY, ALUVA-683 112.

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN


              SRI.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC FOR R1 TO R3

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE
     COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A. No.1732/2020                   :2:


                Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021.

                              JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the judgment

dated 30.09.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 17702 of 2020, whereby the following

reliefs sought for in the writ petition were declined by the learned single

Judge:

1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue hall ticket to the petitioner herein that would enable the petitioner to redo the internal assessment of 3rd semester English paper, within a time frame fixed by this Court or as expeditiously as possible.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions directing the 4th respondent to conduct the internal reassessment of the petitioner's 3rd semester English paper and to duly forward the result of such re- assessment to the 1st respondent within a time frame fixed by this Court or as expeditiously as possible.

3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions directing the respondents 1 to 3 to immediately publish the result or outcome of the internal re- assessment of the petitioner herein within a time frame fixed by this Court or as expeditiously as possible.

2. The learned single Judge, after taking into account the

subject issues raised by the appellant as well as the University, has

entered into the following findings:

"4. When I hear Sri.Asok M.Cherian as afore, it is without doubt that the petitioner can seek the reliefs in this writ petition not on the basis of any statutory provision but only as an indulgence from the University. However, since the University has already granted an opportunity to all students through Annexure R1(a), taking note of the fact that the earlier internal evaluation done by the College was not satisfactory, the petitioner ought to have accepted that opportunity. However, he unequivocally admits that though he had applied for redoing his internal examinations for Semesters 1 and 2, he had not done so for the 3rd Semester, allegedly because he was under the impression that he had cleared the said Semester.

5. I am afraid that since this is a mistake committed by the petitioner himself, I cannot direct the Mahatma Gandhi University to grant him any further latitude; particularly, when it is not supported by any provision in the applicable Statutes, Rules or Regulations.

In the afore circumstances, recording the afore submissions made on behalf of the University by Sri.Asok M.Cherian, I close this writ petition, without issuing any further orders."

It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment,

this appeal is filed.

3. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The appellant has filed the writ petition complaining that respondents 1

to 3 i.e., the Mahatma University, the Vice Chancellor and the Controller

of Examinations have conducted themselves arbitrarily in not issuing the

hall ticket to the appellant for the internal redo assessment even after

accepting the required fee for the same. According to the appellant,

pursuant to Ext.P1 representation submitted by the appellant to the Vice

Chancellor of the Mahatma University, he was instructed to reappear for

internal reassessment again and thereupon, he remitted the stipulated

fee for redoing the internal assessment. However, the hall ticket has not

been issued. It is further submitted that even though the appellant

personally approached the first respondent University for the issuance of

the hall ticket, no action was taken.

4. The case of the appellant was that he was informed that since

the concerned officer/staff is unable to attend the office due to pandemic

Covid-19, they were not in a position to take any action, and that the

inaction on the part of the officials has resulted in causing serious

prejudice to him. According to him, the inaction on the part of

respondents 1 to 3 to discharge their duty alleging Covid pandemic

reasons cannot be sustained. It was in the said background that the

appellant has filed the writ petition.

5. The Mahatma Gandhi University has contended before the

learned single Judge that as per the Common Regulation for Five year

Integrated LLB Course, redoing of internal examination cannot be

entertained under any circumstances and that the internal marks once

submitted to the University shall never be subjected to renewal or

correction. It was also pointed out that the appellant, who completed the

BA LLB (5 Year) Integrated course from the Bharat Matha School of Legal

Studies--4th respondent, had an opportunity to redo the internal as per

University Order dated 13.06.2019, which was granted as a special

chance only under extraordinary circumstances, evident from Ext.R1(a).

Subsequently, applications for internal redoing of semesters 1 to 10 were

invited and examinations were conducted in June, 2019.

6. It was also submitted that the appellant submitted an

application for redoing the internals for the subjects in 1st and 2nd

semesters only. The marks secured by the appellant for those semesters

was received by the University and the result was published thereafter.

The appellant never submitted an application for redoing the internals of

any of the subjects in third semester, nor his marks were received in the

University. Even though the appellant remitted an amount of Rs. 2300/-

on 19.03.2020, the purpose for remittance was unknown. The University

has not issued any notification to conduct the internal redo for BA LLB (5

Year) Integrated Course (2013 admissions), for which an opportunity for

redo was already availed by the appellant as a special case.

7. It was further submitted that the University has issued

Annexure R1(a) order after detailed deliberations and therefore, there is

no arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the University in not

permitting the appellant to redo the internal assessment, since there is

no provision under the University Act/Rules or Regulations enabling the

appellant to do so.

8. We have heard Adv. T.T. Muhamood for the appellant and Sri.

Asok M. Cherian, learned Standing Counsel for the University, and

perused the pleadings and materials on record.

9. The discussions made above would make it clear that there is

no provision under any of the University laws for redoing the internal

examinations. But, the University has issued Annexure R1(a) order dated

13.06.2019, since there were some lapses on the part of the college in

conducting the internals, and it was thereupon imposing a fine of

Rs.10,000/- alone, the college was permitted to redo the internal

assessment. It is an admitted fact that there is no provision of law

enabling the appellant to claim the redo of internal assessment as of

right. The point that was raised by the appellant was that he has

deposited the necessary fees for participating in the redo of internal

assessment and therefore, as of right he is entitled to do it.

10. The University, in its statement before the learned single

Judge, has clearly stated that the appellant has remitted an amount of

Rs.2300/-; but it was not specified, for what purpose the said amount

was deposited. Anyhow, we are of the clear opinion that mere remittance

of a fee would not enable the appellant to participate in any redo of

internal assessment, when there is no provision at all under the

University Laws for that purpose. It was taking into account all the above

aspects, the learned single Judge has entered into the findings and

observations declining the reliefs sought for by the appellant. We are

also of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge was right in

holding that the appellant, as of right, is not entitled to get any reliefs

sought for in the writ petition. Therefore we do not think the learned

single Judge has committed any error of jurisdiction or any other legal

infirmities so as to interfere in the judgment in an intra-court appeal filed

under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.

Needless to say, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is

dismissed.

sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv