Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38769
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
SHYAMKUMAR P.K. – Appellant
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, – Respondent
WP(C)/761/2020
SRI.ARUN SAMUEL, SMT.DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN, ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
Students have the right to fair examination opportunities, and arbitrary exclusions from these opportunities by educational institutions are not permissible.
Headnote:
Education - Law Students' Internal Assessment - Act Section List - The decision by the university to restrict opportunities for improving internal assessment marks was deemed arbitrary, ensuring students' rights to fair examination processes were upheld based on previous resolutions and clarifications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a law student, sought to improve low internal assessment marks after the university granted re-examination opportunities to other students but excluded him, leading to his appeal for the same rights.
Issues: Whether the university's decision to restrict re-examination opportunities to certain students was arbitrary and if the petitioner was entitled to the same benefit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the university's inconsistent application of its own regulations and previous resolutions constituted an arbitrary exercise of power, affording the petitioner the right to redo his internal examinations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the university to permit the petitioner to re-do his internal examinations.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a three year LLB Course student in the 4th respondent college. Even though the petitioner has completed his course, he has not passed in a few subjects principally for the reason that he has scored low internal assessment marks.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the Board of Studies in Law of the 1st respondent (University) had considered the question of granting another opportunity to the students to improve their internal marks. Subsequently, the Academic Council of the University in its meeting held on 5.10.2019 by Ext.P1 approved the decision of the Board of Studies. In consequence of Ext.P1, one of the Branches in the 3rd respondent's office sought a clarification of Ext.P1 from the Dean, Faculty of Law of the University. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P2 had issued the necessary clarifications. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P3 notification as regards the improvement of internal examinations only for the 2011 Scheme- 2012-2013 admission. Since Ext.P3 notification has not been extended to the petitioner, he has submitted Exts.P4 to P6 representations before the University. However, the University has not acted on the same. Ext.P3 is an arbitrary exercise of power. Hence, the petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to appear for the examinations as notified by Ext.P3 for improving his internal examinations in light of Exts.P1 and P2.
3. Heard Sri.K.R.Arun Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent.
4. This Court while considering a case of identical nature by its judgment dated 15.7.2020 in W.P (C ) No.303 of 2020 held as follows:
“12. A reading of the afore-quoted portions of Ext.P3(a) and P8 clearly substantiate that the Board for Adjudication of Students Grievances had taken a conscious decision to confer the benefit on all students of Under Graduate Programes in Law for re-doing their internal examinations. The said matter was placed before the Academic Council, which also resolved to grant students a chance to redo their internal examinations. The above unanimous decisions were accepted by the Vice-Chancellor, who accorded sanction to implement the resolution of the Academic Council dated 05.10.2019. Similarly, in Ext.P8 order, it is categorically mentioned that the order is passed to confer the benefit of improvement of internal marks to students of all under graduate programmes in law of the University without any time period. It is specifically mentioned in Clause 5 of Ext.P8 that the stipulation in University Order No.150/2016/PB stipulating the time period of N+2(+1) years in exceptional cases for completing the courses has to be harmoniously construed with Ext.P7.
13. Therefore, the contention of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the statement that, in view of U.O No.150/2016/PB, the first petitioner cannot be given the benefit to re- do the internal examinations is untenable and unsustainable in law. The University cannot now take a volte-face and contend that Ext.P8 does not confer the right on all students of the undergraduate programme in law, to redo their internal examinations, in view of the earlier order, which has not even been placed before this Court.
14. The University has consciously included University Order No.150/2016/PB in Ext.P8 for the purpose of conferring the benefits on all Under Graduate Students in the programme of Law.
15. In view of the unambiguous wordings in Exts.P7 and P8, I am of the considered opinion that the 1st petitioner is entitled to re-do his internal examinations based on Exts.P7 and P8. Hence, the benefit of Ext.P5 notification is to be extended to the first petitioner, in view of Exts.P7 and P8.
5. Subsequently, this Court by its common judgment dated 12.8.2020, in a batch of cases in W.P(C) No.35975/2019, 440/2020, 918/2020 and 1928/2020, also relying
