The University must adhere to its own established examination policies and ensure fair opportunities for all students.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Issues raised in these writ petitions are common and, therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Petitioners are students, who have completed B.Tech course in colleges which are affiliated to the first respondent University. They were admitted during the year 2006-07 and 2007-08. However, they have not successfully passed the examinations of some of the papers of the 1st and 2nd semesters and are desirous of appearing in the supplementary examination.

3. By Ext.P1 notification dated 04.10.2011 (in W.P (C) No.29180/2011), the University notified supplementary examinations for the semesters 3, 5, 7 and 8. Subsequently, based on the representations that were received from the students, Ext.P2 notification (in W.P(C)

No.29180/2011) was issued on 21.10.2011, notifying the supplementary examinations for semesters 4 and 6 also. In other words, by Exts.P1 and P2, the University is proposing to conduct supplementary examination for semesters 3 to 8. 4. However, the University has not notified supplementary examination for semesters 1 and 2 and petitioners in W.P.(C) No.29180/2011 have filed Ext.P3 representation, requesting the University to conduct a supplementary examination for 1st and 2nd semesters also. No action was taken by the University on their representation. This made them to file this writ petition, seeking mainly a direction to the respondent University to conduct supplementary examination for 1st and 2nd semesters also, along with the supplementary examination, which are already notified.

5. The Standing Counsel for the University has filed a statement in W.P(C) No.27320/2011, which has been adopted as a common statement. According to the University, initially, Year Out System was prevailing, which has been dispensed with from 2005. It is stated that, irrespective of whether the students pass in the semester examination or not, they are now entitled to continue the course till the 8th semester. It is also stated that, in 2005, in a meeting between the Vice Chancellor and the Principals of the Colleges, it was decided to conduct the 1st and 2nd, 4th and 6th semester supplementary examinations in April only and the 3rd, 5th and 7th semester supplementary examinations in October only and the 8th semester examination both in April and October.

6. It is also stated that this new system to conduct supplementary examination based on an odd and even method was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.32140/2008 and that by Annexure-1 judgment rendered on 01.12.2008, this Court upheld the same. Therefore, the contention raised is that, the University has no liability to conduct supplementary examination for 1st and 2nd semester students as sought for by the petitioners in these cases.

7. From the statement filed and from the judgment that is relied on, although such a decision as claimed was taken by the University and that this Court has upheld the same, it appears that the University itself was not complying with this decision. Ext.P4 in W.P(C) No.29180/2011 is a notification issued by the University on 29.03.2011, scheduling the supplementary examinations for semesters 1 to 5 together. Similarly, Ext.P5 is another notification issued by the University on 8.10.2010, which also shows that a supplementary examination for semesters 1 and 2 was scheduled in November, 2010. These documents, therefore, support the case of the petitioners that the University itself did not follow its decision to conduct supplementary examinations in the manner as decided by the Vice Chancellor in the meeting held with the Principals of the Colleges. In such circumstances, the University cannot rely upon its aforesaid decision to defeat the claim of the petitioners. If that be so, I see no reason why this time supplementary examinations for students of the 1st and 2nd semesters should not be held by the University.

8. In that view of the matter, I dispose of these writ peti