Judgment :- 1. The petitioner passed in 2nd Class the 3rd year LL.B, examination conducted by the first respondent, University of Kerala in July 1984 securing 457 marks. According to him he secured the highest marks in the examination. The 2nd respondent, another candidate who also secured 2nd Class in the same examination but only secured 455 marks, has been declared by the first respondent as entitled to the award of the first rank. This is challenged as arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal in this original petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Admittedly, no candidate who appeared for the 3rd year LL.B, examination conducted by the first respondent in July 1984 secured a first class. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent secured 457 and 455 marks respectively. The petitioner claims to be entitled to the award of the first rank on the ground that he secured the highest marks. The 3rd respondent, yet another candidate in the same examination, got himself impleaded subsequently. His original mark-list shows that he secured 450 marks, 41 marks out of 100 having been awarded to him in Part I First Paper (Public International law) and 51 marks out of 100 having been awarded to him in Part II Paper II (Law of Elections and Law of Local Government). It appears, he applied for revaluation of marks in these two subjects. On revaluation he has been awarded 49 and 56 marks respectively in these two subjects; thereby the total marks secured by him became 463 marks out of 800. Thus, prima facie, it will appear that neither the petitioner nor the 2nd respondent would have any legitimate claim for being awarded the first rank. The original petition is therefore infructuous. 3. However, learned counsel appearing for all the parties submitted that the question in controversy in the original petition may be considered. 4. LL.B, course of the first respondent University is a three year degree course. At the end of each year of the course the candidates have to appear for an examination conducted by the University. It is said that first rank is awarded to the most meritorious candidate in each of the examinations. We are concerned in this case with the first rank to be awarded to the most meritorious candidate in the 3rd year LL.B, examination. It is said that first rank is awarded to the most meritorious candidate in each of the examinations. We are concerned in this case with the first rank to be awarded to the most meritorious candidate in the 3rd year LL.B, examination. Admittedly, the University has not framed any regulations or rules laying down the procedure or the guidelines for the award of the rank. 5. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent will show that there are rules for the award and administration of gold medals and other prizes for proficiency. The rules framed in 1950 for the award and administration of Malloor Govinda Pillai Gold Medal for law lay down that: "the award of the medal shall be made to the candidate, who after enrolling himself/herself as a student in a college affiliated to this University for undergoing the course, passes the LL.B. Degree Examination at the first attempt and immediately after the completion of the course in the minimum period prescribed and secures the highest number of marks." In Para.8 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that this procedure is being followed by the University for the award of ranks also. Para 4 of the counter affidavit is thus: "Ranks are awarded purely on merit. The procedure followed was to award the First Rank to the candidate who passed the LL.B. Degree Examination at the first attempt immediately after the completion of the course in the minimum period prescribed and secures the highest number of marks." 7. The petitioner completed the LL.B, course during the period 1980-83. He registered his name for the 3rd year L.L.B. Degree Examination held in June 1983; but he absented himself from the examination. He actually appeared for the examination conducted in July 1984 and secured 457 out of 800 marks. The minimum period prescribed for the whole course is three years. Since he did not appear for the 3rd year LL.B. Degree Examination in 1983, he cannot be regarded as a candidate who passed the examination in 1983, he cannot be regarded as a candidate who passed the examination at the first attempt immediately after the completion of the course in the minimum period prescribed. Therefore he cannot challenge the non-award of the first rank to him by the University. 8. Therefore he cannot challenge the non-award of the first rank to him by the University. 8. The petitioner, who argued his own case, contended that the insistence on the completion of the course in the minimum period prescribed is arbitrary and unreasonable. This criterion, according to him, is unrelated to the scheme of awarding ranks and is irrelevant in the matter of deciding on the merit of the candidates. This would mean that there is no difference between a candidate who takes any number of years for the completion of the course and a candidate who completes the course in the minimum period prescribed. There is certainly a difference between a candidate who completes the course in the minimum period prescribed appearing regularly for the relevant examinations and a candidate who takes four or five years for the completion of the course or appears for the relevant examinations after an interval of one or two years. The two types of candidates cannot be equated. They are not on a para and cannot be regarded as equals. Completion of course within the minimum period is prescribed as an index of merit and relevant in the matter of deciding eligibility or merit. I do not find anything unreasonable or arbitrary in the procedure for determining merit or eligibility being followed by the University. However, an institution like the University would do well to prescribe rules or regulations governing the award of ranks, to avoid all future controversy. 9. The petitioner would cite the instance of Sri. Venugopalan Nair who was awarded the First Rank in 1980. It is said that Sri. Venugopalan Nair was in the same position as the petitioner in that he also appeared for the 3rd year examination after an interval of one year. This is cited as a precedent by the petitioner. The first respondent, on the other hand, would contend that was a mistake and not a precedent. I am inclined to agree that should not be treated as a precedent. In any event, this does not matter in view of the claim put forward on behalf of the 3rd respondent. In the result, the original petition is dismissed, but without costs. Dismissed.