Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1983 DIGILAW 328 (KER)

Mohanadasan v. University of Calicut

1983-12-14

V.BHASKARAN NAMBIAR

body1983
JUDGMENT : The career of a student depends on the fate of this writ petition. The legal problem has to be tackled from a human angle. 2. The Petitioner, a graduate, enrolled for Post-graduate studies in Sociology as a private candidate in 1979, sat for the M. A. previous examination in May 1980 and failed. He however, continued and completed his two year course. No candidate shall be declared to have passed the M. A. Degree examination unless he has passed the M. A. (previous) and the M. A. (final) examinations. He applied for admission to both the examinations in January 1981 after remitting the necessary fee. Unfortunately for the petitioner, he had to attend on his father who was seriously ill till he died in April 1981. He did not therefore write the examination held in May 1981. He applied again in 1982 and remitted the fees too; he could not write that examination either. In 1983, for the third time he applied to sit for the examination, by remitting the fees in January 1983. In May 1983, he got a memo (Ext. P1) reading thus: MEMO With reference to his application for admission to the ensuing M. A. Sociology Final Examination to be held in May 1983 Sri. Mohanadasan P. is informed that his application is rejected for reasons noted below. The Examination fee remitted by him will not be refunded or adjusted for any other purpose and he will not be registered for the ensuing examination. Sd/- For CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS. (4) Hence he has not passed the M.A. previous exam within the prescribed chances of three, he is not eligible for admission for the final year Examination.” The petitioner filed this Original Petition challenging Ext. P1 on 24-5-1983, and obtained an interim order on 3-6-1983 to the following effect: “The petitioner will provisionally be allowed to sit for the M.A. previous examinations to be conducted on 14-6-1983. But his results will not be published until further orders from this court”. 3. The petitioner, it is said, sat for the M. A. previous examinations and the results await the decision in this O. P. 4. It is contended that Ext. P1 was issued without jurisdiction and is opposed to the Calicut University Regulations. 5. But his results will not be published until further orders from this court”. 3. The petitioner, it is said, sat for the M. A. previous examinations and the results await the decision in this O. P. 4. It is contended that Ext. P1 was issued without jurisdiction and is opposed to the Calicut University Regulations. 5. Under the relevant regulations (Regulation 14 in Chapter VII) “candidates shall take the degree within 5 years from the date of enrolment, limiting the chances to three for each examination.” The regulation also provides, “the result of the final year examination shall not be published until the candidate passes the previous examination”. 6. Ext. P1 states that as the petitioner has not passed the M.A. previous examination within the prescribed three chances, he is not eligible for admission to sit for the final year examination. Passing of the previous examination is not a condition precedent for sitting for the final examination. Under the regulations, he can sit for the final examination, even though he has not passed the previous examination, but the results of the final examination will be published only after the candidate passes the previous examination. The reason stated in Ext. P1 is thus not supportable. 7. This however will give no relief to the petitioner, if under the regulations he has already forfeited his right to sit for the M.A. previous examination, and no purpose would be achieved by allowing him to sit for the examination, the result of which can never be published. The question therefore arises whether the petitioner was entitled to sit for the M.A. previous examination after he failed in May 1980 and did not sit for the examinations in 1981 and 1982 after having remitted the examination fee on both the occasions. It is necessary therefore to refer to the scheme of the relevant regulations. 8. There is no classification at the M.A. previous stage. Successful candidates of the M.A. degree examination are ranked in the order of proficiency as indicated in the total marks obtained by each candidate in the M.A. previous and M.A. final examination together. It is necessary therefore to refer to the scheme of the relevant regulations. 8. There is no classification at the M.A. previous stage. Successful candidates of the M.A. degree examination are ranked in the order of proficiency as indicated in the total marks obtained by each candidate in the M.A. previous and M.A. final examination together. For improving grade, Regulation.10 provides thus:- “A candidate who has passed the M.A. degree examination in the 2nd/3rd class shall be given two chances to re-appear for the same examination to improve his/her grade within the period of three years after his/her passing the examination concerned.” Cancellation is permitted thus: “Candidates shall be permitted to cancel their examination. They should apply for cancellation within a period of 15 days after the last day of the examination. One cancellation for previous and one for final examination shall be permitted.” What then is the reasonable interpretation to be given to the words ’limiting the chances to three” in Regulation.14. Is it sufficient if a candidate is given three chances? Or is it necessary that he has to avail three chances? If he has to utilise the three chances, is it again sufficient if he simply remits the fee and applies for registration to sit for the examination or is it not necessary that the candidate should appear and sit for the examination at least in part? A practical solution without offending the Regulations, but at the same time achieving the desired object has to be arrived at. 9. Is it sufficient if the candidate is given three chances? A candidate is given a chance to sit for the examination when the University notifies the date of the examination and conducts the examination. It is nobody’s case that a candidate gets a chance when the dates of the examinations are notified. The expression “limiting the chance” can therefore be understood as a chance availed of by the candidate. True, he prepares for the examination and remits the fee for the purpose. He has not yet taken the chance to sit for the examination. He has prepared himself to sit for the examination. He takes the chance only when he appears for the examination at least in part. True, he prepares for the examination and remits the fee for the purpose. He has not yet taken the chance to sit for the examination. He has prepared himself to sit for the examination. He takes the chance only when he appears for the examination at least in part. Limiting the chance to three in Regulation.14 of the University Regulations can thus be understood only in the sense that a candidate not only takes the steps to sit for the examination, but also utilises the opportunity to appear for the examination. Permission to take the examination implied in the acceptance of the registration fee is only the opportunity to take the chance and utilisation of the chance by the candidate by sitting for the examination is what is contemplated under the regulations which insists that the candidate shall have three chances. 10. The counsel for the University relied on an unreported decision of my learned brother, Balagangadharan Nair, J. in OP. No. 630 of 1981. In fact this decision was relied by the counsel for the petitioner also. In that case, His Lordship was considering a different rule altogether. The question for consideration there was whether a person who was allowed to appear for the examination for betterment of his marks could do it again and it was held that as he had been once allowed to reappear, he was caught by the mischief of the clause “Reappearance shall not be allowed more than once”. 11. The interpretation now given does not cause any administrative hardship to the University and when the degree has to be taken within 5 years from the date of enrolment, it is not as if a post graduate candidate gets unlimited chances. Within 5years, the outer limit fixed by the Regulations, a candidate can take three chances, the maximum allowed, to sit for the examination. 12. Ext. P1 is opposed to Regulation.14 in Chapter VII of the Calicut University Regulations and has therefore to be set aside. It is thus quashed. The petitioner has already sat for the M. A. previous examination pursuant to the interim orders already issued. The result of this examination will be published. If he has passed that examination, the result of the final year examination, if he has sat for it, can also be published. The O.P. is allowed. No costs. Allowed.