Rathish M.V vs Mahatma Gandhi University
2021 Latest Caselaw 289 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

  WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                     WP(C).No.10150 OF 2020(P)

PETITIONER :

               RATHISH M.V.,
               AGED 37 YEARS,
               S/O.P.A.VELAYUDHAN,
               MADANAPPADATHU HOUSE,
               VADACODE.P.O, KOCHI-682021.

               BY ADV. SRI.GIKKU JACOB

RESPONDENTS :

      1        MAHATMA GANDHI   UNIVERSITY
               REPRESENTED BY   THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
               PRIYADHARSHANI   HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
               KOTTAYAM - 686   560.

      2        VICE CHANCELLOR,
               MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
               PRIYADHARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
               ATHIRAMPUZHA.P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.

      3        PRINCIPAL,
               GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE,
               PARK AVENUE, COLLEGE.P.O,
               ERNAKULAM - 682 016.

               R1 & R2 BY SRI.ASHOK M. CHERIAN, SC,
               M.G. UNIVERSITY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.10150 OF 2020(P)

                                    2



                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of January 2021

Petitioner had joined for Law in the year 2005. He

discontinued in 2007, but rejoined in 2009 and completed the

course in 2012. By then, he could clear only 10 subjects. However,

in the year 2017, petitioner wrote 41 papers and cleared all of

them. Now he is left with nine more subjects to complete his LLB

course.

2. It is submitted by Adv.Gikku Jacob, the learned

counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's inability to complete the

course at one stretch or attempt to clear the examinations was

due to his penury and the hardships faced by him. It was

submitted that in the internal examinations of six subjects he has

obtained very low marks. The learned counsel for petitioner

beseeched this Court to show an indulgence to the petitioner to

redo his internal examinations so that he stands a chance to clear

the LLB course.

3. In the internal examinations for certain subjects,

petitioner could not score any marks. It is submitted that since

the internal examination marks are extremely poor, it is practically

impossible for the petitioner to obtain even pass marks for his WP(C).No.10150 OF 2020(P)

remaining subjects as the valuation for subjects in LLB are quite

tough. Accordingly, he seeks for a direction to the respondents to

permit the petitioner to redo the internal examination of Paper

Nos.26 and 29 of the 5th Semester as well as Paper Nos.55, 56, 57

and 58 of the 10th Semester of the Five Year LLB course under the

first respondent.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

University Sri.Ashok M Cherian submits that the petitioner is not

entitled as of right to obtain any direction for redoing the internal

examination since the petitioner had not applied for such redoing

of the internal examination within the time of one year stipulated

under the 'Regulations'. It is also pointed by the learned Standing

Counsel that the time stipulation of one year was brought in after

a detailed discussion at the academic level and the same cannot be

interfered with.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my

attention to a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in

WA.No.1544/2020, wherein, this Court directed the Vice

Chancellor of the first respondent University to consider the

application of the student therein. In coming to such a

conclusion, this Court had referred to the directions issued in WP(C).No.10150 OF 2020(P)

WA.No.648/2018.

6. I have considered the contentions raised across the

Bar. It is true that the petitioner is attempting to redo the internal

examinations and had applied for the same beyond the time limit

stipulated in the 'Regulations'. Though the Standing Counsel for

the University pointed out that it is a regulation that stipulates the

time limit, it is seen from the judgment referred to in

WA.No.1544/2020 that this Court had declared in the judgment in

WA.No.648/2018 that the stipulation of one year is not a

regulation but only an order of the academic council of the

University and can be varied by the Vice Chancellor, according to

the circumstances of each individual case.

7. Taking note of the fact that petitioner had cleared 51

theory subjects out of a total of 60 subjects within a short time,

reflecting his interest and aptitude for law, this Court feels that an

indulgence could be shown to the petitioner to enable him to

attempt to complete the LLB course by redoing the internal

examination. This is all the more so, since the present will be the

last 'mercy chance' available to the petitioner to complete the

course in the syllabus he studied. The syllabus for persons like the

petitioner are slated to change after the next examinations. WP(C).No.10150 OF 2020(P)

8. However, since the Vice Chancellor is vested with the

powers to pass orders, it is only appropriate that the Vice

Chancellor takes a decision in the instant case regarding the

eligibility of the petitioner to redo the internal examination taking

note of the observations made by this Court as above including

the last mercy chance available to the petitioner, the penury of the

petitioner, the clearing of 41 subjects at one stretch and even the

proposed change of syllabus.

9. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the last date for paying the fee for written

examinations is 07.01.2021 without fine and with fine it is

11.01.2021. He also pointed out that the proposed date for

written examination is 22.01.2021 and if a decision is not taken

before the dates fixed for the written examination, petitioner will

suffer great hardships, in the event of an order in his favour.

10. Taking note of the circumstances and also

reckoning the position of the petitioner as mentioned earlier, I

deem it fit to direct the 2nd respondent to take a decision on the

application of the petitioner for redoing the internal examination of

Paper Nos.26 and 29 of the 5th Semester LLB as well as Paper

Nos.55, 56, 57 and 58 of the 10 th Semester of the Five Year LLB WP(C).No.10150 OF 2020(P)

course within a period of two weeks from today, at any rate, not

later than 20.01.2021 bearing in mind the observations in

paragraph 7 and 8 above. For enabling the 2 nd respondent to abide

by the above direction, Ext.P5 shall stand set aside.

The original petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

RKM WP(C).No.10150 OF 2020(P)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE VTH SEMESTER LL.B.MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER OF JUNE 2017.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE VTH SEMESTER LL.B MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER OF MAY 2018.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE VTH SEMESTER LL.B MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER OF JUNE 2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE XTH SEMESTER LL.B MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER OF OCTOBER 2018.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.4.2018 REFUSING THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6          TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
                    8.10.2018 IN W.P(C).NO.23372 OF 2018 OF
                    THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P7          TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
                    PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.2.2020 OF THE 1ST
                    RESPONDENT.