Academic institutions possess the autonomy to define specific criteria, such as the interpretation of 'first attempt' for awarding prizes like gold medals, and courts should generally not interfere in such purely academic determinations unless there is a clear violation of statutory or constitutional rights.

PRAYER

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Order dated 19.11.2021 vide in No.12-1/BGCW/ Estt./ CE/2021/ passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to award a Gold Medal with relevant academic certificates to the petitioner herein for her meritorious academic performance in the B.Com(Corporate Secretaryship) course conducted during the academic session 2015-2018.

For Petitioner: M/s C.Bhargavi

For Respondents: Mr.R.Syed Musthafa, Spl.GP (Pondy) for R1 to R4

ORDER

Writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 19.11.2021 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to award a Gold Medal with relevant academic certificates to the petitioner herein for her meritorious academic performance in the B.Com (Corporate secretaryship) course conducted during the academic session 2015-2018.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that she underwent B.Com (Corporate Secretaryship)course in the second respondent college during the academic years 2015 to 2018. The petitioner, after successful

completion of the course, attended the convocation also. However, the petitioner, who was the topper with the overall score of 2014 out of 2600 was not conferred with the gold medal. However, the 5th respondent namely Vijayalakshmi, who scored only 1923/2600 marks (i.e.) 109 marks, less than the petitioner, was granted the gold medal. The petitioner, therefore made a representation to the respondents and the same is now rejected by the impugned order and the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the gold medal was rejected to the petitioner only on the ground that she was absent for one examination in the first semester. The petitioner was absent because he was afflicted with dengue fever and when she wrote the examination in the ensuing semester as an arrear paper, she cleared the same in the first attempt itself. Therefore, it cannot be deemed to be a second attempt. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgement of the Delhi High Court, in W.P. (C)No.2028/2016 in Abhinav Pandey and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha Univeristy and others. The Delhi High Court considered the very same issue of gold medal and the very same facts and circumstances wherein the candidate was absent and cleared the examination in the next attempt and after considering the meaning of the word ‘attempt’, the Delhi High Court said that the candidate, whose absent on account of illness or due to any other disability, should not be considered as cleared the subject in the second attempt and directed the authorities to confer the gold medal on the particular candidate. The

matter was carried out by way of an intra-court appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and by a judgment dated 16.10.2018 in L.P.A.No.248 of 2018, the Division Bench also confirmed the same view. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order in the present case is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is liable to be conferred with the gold medal.

Per contra, Mr.R.Syed Musthafa, the learned Special Government Pleader (Pondy) appearing on behalf of the respondents one to 4 would submit that the grant of gold medal is not by way of any statutory right, but by way of academic schemes, that are framed by the authorities. The Pondicherry University has issued a Circular, dated 04.06.2018, which would be applicable with reference to the concerned year, in which, the petitioner belongs wherein it clearly says that all the subjects should have been passed out in the first attempt itself. Whether the petit