Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 563
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
A.G.S. Emmanuel & Others - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, State of Tamilnadu, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos. 2649, 2650 & 2651 of 2019 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 8975, 8976 & 8977 of 2019
Decided On : 11-05-2019
For the Petitioners:S. Balamurugan, Advocate
For the Respondents: M. Rajarajan, Standing Counsel
Laches can be a ground for dismissing a petition when the complaint is raised after the declaration of results.
Headnote:
Revaluation - Engineering Design - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the rejection of revaluation for a theory paper in the M.E. (Engineering Design) course, finding that the complaint about the question being out of syllabus was raised after the declaration of results and that the petitioners were guilty of laches.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners failed to clear a theory paper in their M.E. course and claimed that a question was out of syllabus. They applied for revaluation, but their request was rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint about the question being out of syllabus was raised after the declaration of results and that the petitioners were guilty of laches, dismissing the writ petitions.
Issues: Complaint about question being out of syllabus, rejection of revaluation, and laches of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint about the question being out of syllabus was raised after the declaration of results and that the petitioners were guilty of laches, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
1. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The Writ petitioners after obtaining their Engineering degrees, joined Government College of Engineering, Tirunelveli, in the academic year 2017-18 to undergo M.E.(Engineering Design) course. It is a two years course. The second semester of the first year contains 6 Theory papers and 2 Practical examinations. The petitioners could not clear 1 Theory paper, namely, Integrated Mechanical Design.
3. The examination for the said subject was held on 23.05.2018. According to the Writ petitioners, Question No.13.b from Part-B of the question paper was out of syllabus. This question carried 54 marks out of 100. Even though the Writ petitioners attended the said question “13.b”, they could not get the requisite marks for securing a pass. The petitioners applied for revaluation. But even then, the situation did not improve for them. The Writ petitioners submitted a representation on 03.09.2018 pointing this out. But in their representation, the Writ petitioners have taken the stand that not only the Question No.13.b, Question No.13.a was also framed out of syllabus. The petitioner's request was rejected vide communication dated 03.12.2018 by the Controller of Examinations. This communication is under challenge in these Writ petitions.
4. On the side of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit had been filed. Since the issue raised in these Writ petitions is having a technical bearing, this Court requested the respondents to depute an academician in the subject to assist the Court. Dr. G. Shibu, Professor, Dr. K. Raja, Professor and Dr. V.S. Chandra Sekar, Assistant Professor, were present before me to explain the issues involved.
5. Two of the students were also present and fully participated in the proceedings.
6. While the students would stick to their stand that the questions were framed out of syllabus, the professors would firmly assert that the questions are well within the syllabus. Dr. G.Shibu, Professor, placed on record a note given by Dr. Latha Nagendran, Professor and Director, AU-FRG Insitute for CAD CAM, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Guindy, Anna University, Chennai. The said note reads as follows:-
“13.b. A single-start square threaded screw, of a screw jack used for lifting loads is to be designed. This is a power screw for which equations are available in the Data book. Screws from basic parts of any machine. The given screw dimensions can be determined from torque criterion and also buckling. The data for boundary condition is stated explicitly to determine the equivalent length in buckling. As the students have been provided with the arrangement of the power screw with the transmissions and motor, they are expected to apply the concepts picked up in Integrated Design and proceed. It cannot be considered as out of syllabus. It is only an application which the students have to use their design concepts to obtain dimensions.”
7. In the very nature of things, the scope for judicial review is highly limited in cases such as this. In this case, this Court is not having the requisite academic or technical background to come to a decision. If there had been more time, this Court could have availed the assistance of an independent academic expert. But then, the issue on hand can be disposed of on a short ground. It is not in dispute that the examination in question was conducted on 23.05.2018. The results were announced on 29.06.2018. The representation from the Writ petitioners was received only on 03.09.2018. Thus, there was no complaint from the Writ petitioners herein about the questions having been framed out of syllabus before the declaration of results. Of course in the rejoinder, the petitioners would claim that they had taken up the issue with their Head of the Department on 30th May, 2018 itself. But this claim is not made in the original affidavit filed in support of the Writ petitions.
8. It is relevant to note that as many as 315 s
