JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J.

For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, C.M.Appln.No.722/2017 is allowed condoning the delay of 103 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The question involved in the present intra court appeal preferred by Mahatma Gandhi University is whether the decision of the Single Bench rendered in W.P. (C)No.27879/2016 issuing directions to the university to make amendment in the Regulations and interpretations of the Regulations as suitable to the candidate, would be sustainable in view of the catena of judgments and also the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Indian Institute of Technology and Others v. Soutrik Saranqi and Others [(2021) 17 SCC 79]. The courts have to be circumspect and wary in bringing the controversy under scrutiny of judicial review like the one which has been arisen in this case for interpretation of Regulation suitable to the candidates, for, it is always left open to the wisdom of the academicians or framers when such Regulations were incorporated. To answer the aforementioned question, the facts in brief are as under:

Vide memo dated 05.08.2016 University informed respondent No.1/petitioner, student of five year LLB course of Government Law College, Ernakulam, that he was eligible for re-doing the internals of the papers of 6th semester and 8th semester ie., Constitutional Law II, Law of Evidence Civil Procedure Code II but as per the existing Rules the request could not be considered with regard to 6th , 7th and 8th semester, ie, contract II, Practical Training I and Practical Training II. It was further informed that the verification of the records revealed that the candidate was absent for external papers of 9th semester LLB in June, 2009, and the internal marks, thereto, was not forwarded to the office prior to the examination. Non-receipt of internal marks by the University of 9th semester forwarded by the principal, after the publication of result could not be accepted. Respondent No.1/petitioner laid challenge to the aforementioned communication through the writ petition by seeking following reliefs:

“i. Declare that the stipulations made in Order No.AC.AIV/3/558/CC/LLB/2003 extracted at Paragraph 10 is applicable for Theory and Practical Papers, equally; and that the true intent and purpose of the order is to permit the students who procure less than 30% marks, as additional opportunity to better their marks; and ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Exhibit P10, to the extent it declines permission for re-doing the three papers mentioned therein and to the extent it maintains an absolute silence on the prayer made in Exhibit P6 for re-doing Internal Assessment Examination for all papers of Ixth Semester LLB and to the extent it refuses to accept the internal examination marks of Ixth Semester LLB received from the College; and iii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order compelling the 1st Respondent University to permit the Petitioner to re-do the internal assessment for the three papers declined in Exhibit P10 and for all the papers of the 9th Semester LLB;”

3. It would be worthwhile to extract the order sought to be interpreted suitable to respondent No.1, extracted in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. The same reads as under:

“Order No.AC.AIV/3/558/CC/LLB/2003, dated 28th June

2003, which provides;

"Chance to redo internal assessment of any paper of LLB (semester system)"

Students from 5th to 10th semesters of five year LLB and students of 1st to VIth semesters of three year LLB who failed to secure 6 marks or above and the students of 1st to 4th semesters of five year LLB who failed to score 3 marks or above for the internals may be permitted to re-join for the purpose of re- assessment of internal assessment to the semester in which the paper, the student wishes to redo is included, only after the completion of the LLB course. Such a chance to redo is available only once. The stu