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

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

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

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.

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,

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

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

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

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

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