A university must consider students' requests for redoing exams in light of prior permissions granted under similar situations.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a 6th semester law student at Mount Zion Law College and is pursuing his studies under the three year unitary LLB course. He appeared for his third semester exams based on Ext.P1 hall ticket. As regards the Compulsory Clinical Paper 1 – Drafting, Pleading, and Conveyancing, the Principal had a doubt about whether the petitioner could be permitted to redo that paper.

2. The Principal therefore raised a query through Ext.P2 mail and requested the University to intimate whether a student who had failed Compulsory Clinical Paper 1 – Drafting, Pleading, and Conveyancing, a wholly internal paper involving classroom exercises and test papers, can be permitted to Redo the exam. As the query was not answered by the University, the petitioner was not able to appear for that paper. The petitioner therefore, addressed a letter to the University seeking permission to appear for that paper and the University replied by Ext.P3, enjoining that, modifications had been brought to the internal/redo clinical papers of the Three-Year Unitary LLB Regulations based on the recommendations of the Board of Studies in Law. By reason of the modification, the supplementary chance for the Compulsory Clinical Paper can be availed only after completing the three-year course period and with the permission of the University.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the modified condition requiring the student to wait till the course is completed for appearing for the supplementary examination in Compulsory Clinical Paper 1 – Drafting, Pleading, and Conveyancing, will lead to loss of one year. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the modified provision is not applicable to the petitioner, as his request for permission to write the exam was made much earlier. Finally, it is submitted that by Ext.P6, similarly situated students have been granted permission to Redo internal exams.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that, prior to the introduction of Ext.P4, there was no provision for the students to Redo internal exams. Hence the relaxation was brought about by granting an opportunity to Redo the internal exam after completing the course. It is also submitted that Ext.P6 was issued prior to the introduction of Ext.P4 modified regulation.

5. No doubt, after the introduction of Ext.P4, students can Redo their internal exams only after completing the course. Be that as it may, there is some merit in the submission of the learned counsel that other students having been permitted to Redo the internal exams before completing the course, and that the petitioner’s request to write the exam was also produced, exam fees accepted and hall ticket issued, a lenient view ought to be taken.

6. Taking the above factors into consideration, it is only appropriate for the University to have a relook at the petitioner’s request for redoing the internal exams.

The writ petition is hence disposed of by directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P5 request and pass a reasoned decision thereon, referring to Ext.P6 and the fact that the petitioner had been issued Ext.P1 hall ticket after accepting the examination fee from him. The decision as directed above, shall be taken within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.