Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 472 (KER)

Controller Of Examinations v. Geetha Rani

1990-11-09

G.VISWANATHA IYER, V.S.MALIMATH

body1990
JUDGMENT Malimath, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 3478 of 1983 by the Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut. The respondent, Geetha Rani, was regarded as having passed the Pre degree examination and on that basis she was admitted to the First year of the B. A. Degree course in 1982. When her application for taking the First Year B.A. Degree course was sent to the University, the Controller of Examinations took the view that she was not eligible for admission to the First year Degree course. On that basis, she was not given permission to take the examination. It is at that stage the respondent approached this Court in O.P.No. 3478 of 1983 and on the strength of the interim orders made during the pendency of the writ petition, she took not only the First Year Degree Examination, but the Second Year and Third Year Examinations. The results were however directed not to be published subject to the final result of the writ petition. 2. The Pre Degree Examination is regulated by the Regulations and Scheme of Examination for the Pre Degree course introduced from 1979 to 1980. The relevant regulations that govern the Pre Degree examination are Regulation.9 and 10, which may be extracted as follows: "9. A candidate shall be declared to have passed the Pre Degree examination if he obtains not less thani) i) 40% of the total marks in Part I Englishii ii) 40% of the total marks in Part II - Additional Language. iii) 30% of the marks in each subject and 40% of the aggregate marks for the three subjects taken together in Part III - Optional Subjects. However, a candidate who secures a minimum of 40% marks for any subject under Part III shall be declared to have passed in that subject. A candidate who obtains the minimum marks prescribed in Part I/Part II/Part III shall be declared to have passed in that Part of the Examination. 10. A candidate who obtains the pass minimum in Part I Part II /Part III or any subjects under Part III will be exempted from re-appearing for that portion of the examination. They shall not be allowed to appear again for the examination in that part/subject. 10. A candidate who obtains the pass minimum in Part I Part II /Part III or any subjects under Part III will be exempted from re-appearing for that portion of the examination. They shall not be allowed to appear again for the examination in that part/subject. Candidates who do not appear for the whole/part of the examination after having applied for the second Year examination shall be deemed to have failed in the Examination. Candidates who fail in whole/Part of the examination shall take both I and II year examination at one sitting at the subsequent appearance." We are not concerned in this case with the passing of Part I and II examinations as there is no dispute about the same. We are only concerned with the passing of Part III of the Pre Degree examination. Part III consists of three subjects, namely, World History, Indian History and Economics for which maximum marks prescribed for each paper is 150. The respondent had secured in the examination which she took in April, 1981,60 marks in World History, 38 marks in Indian History and 53 marks in Economics. The respondent admits that she has failed in Indian History and on that basis she appeared at the next examination and secured 73 marks in that subject. In this background, the University does not dispute that the respondent had passed in the subjects of World History and Indian History, as she had secured more than 40% in both the subjects. The controversy is really in regard to the third subject, namely, Economics in which she had secured 53 marks. According to the appellant, she could have been regarded to have passed in that subject only if she had secured 60 marks. As she has secured only 53 marks in Economics, it is their contention, that she has failed in that subject. 3. We are informed that she took another examination in Economics in April, 1983 at which she has secured 74 marks, that is more than 40 per cent of the marks in that subject as well. Hence it is clear that at least by April, 1983 even according to the stand taken by the appellant, she has to be regarded as having satisfactorily passed the Pre Degree examination. Hence it is clear that at least by April, 1983 even according to the stand taken by the appellant, she has to be regarded as having satisfactorily passed the Pre Degree examination. It is in this background that the appellant submits that the University has no objection for the withheld examination results of the I, II and III year B.A. Degree course being announced. This stand taken by the appellant would fully satisfy the respondent. 4. Counsel for the appellant, however, request that we should examine the Regulation.9 and 10 so that a proper interpretation is available for application in similar cases arising hereafter. The The decision of the learned Single Judge having been reported in 1988 (1) KLT 892 between Geetha Rani v. Controller of Examinations, it was submitted that the students are likely to lay claim on the basis of the said decision for a declaration that they have passed the examination on the basis of the principle laid down in the above decision by the learned single Judge. Though the grievance of the respondent does not survive in view of the stand taken by the appellant, we have persuaded ourselves to examine the correctness of the view taken by the learned single Judge on the interpretation of the aforesaid Regulation.9 & 10. 5. Clause iii of Regulation.9 speaks of the passing of the entire Part III as also passing in each of the three subjects comprised in Part III. It requires that candidates who secure 30% of the marks in each subjects and 40% of the aggregate marks for the three subjects taken together in Part III - Optional subjects, shall be declared to have passed in Part III. That is the clear language of cl. iii of Regulation.9. Therefore it follows that if the candidate secures a minimum of 30% in each of the subjects of World History, Indian History and Economics, he cannot be regarded as having passed the entire Part unless the aggregate of the marks secured by him in all the three subjects is not less than 40%. The 40% of the aggregate of the marks in the three subjects would come to 180 marks. The 40% of the aggregate of the marks in the three subjects would come to 180 marks. Thus it follows that the candidate must secure not less than 30% i.e., 45 marks in each of the three subjects and also secure a total of 180 in all the three subjects put together to qualify for declaration that he has passed in the entire Part III. This is the principle for declaration that a particular candidate has passed the entire Part III. The second part of clause (iii) of Regulation.9 governs passing in some of the subjects of Part III. The latter part of clause (iii) of Regulation.9 says that a candidate who secures minimum of 40% marks in any subject under Part III shall be declared to have passed in that subject. This is the principle that governs passing in each subject. This rule applies only in cases where the candidate does not pass the entire Part III. The candidate who does not pass the entire part by the principle laid down in the first part can however be declared to have passed in a particular subject if he has secured a minimum of 40% in that subject. In other words, he should secure not less than 60 marks in each of the subjects comprised in Part III. That, in our opinion, is the clear effect of the second part of clause (iii) of Regulation.9. If the candidate secured an aggregate of 180 marks and above in all the three subjects, he passes in the entire part, if he has secured not less than 45 marks in each of the subjects. But if the candidate does not pass in the entire part in that manner, he will be regarded as having passed only in the subject in which he secures not less than 60 marks. Once the candidate fails to pass in the entire Part, he cannot claim the benefit of the first part of Regulation.9. Such a person must secure in each subject not less than 40% i.e., not less than 60 marks. What is provided in Regulation 10 supports this interpretation which we have given to clause (iii) of Regulation.9. It says that a candidate who obtains the pass minimum in Part I/Part II/Part III or any subjects under Part III will be exempted from re-appearing for that portion of the examination. What is provided in Regulation 10 supports this interpretation which we have given to clause (iii) of Regulation.9. It says that a candidate who obtains the pass minimum in Part I/Part II/Part III or any subjects under Part III will be exempted from re-appearing for that portion of the examination. The pass minimum referred to in Regulation 10 is the pass minimum for declaring the candidate as having passed the entire Part III or pass minimum prescribed for declaring the candidate as having passed any of the subjects comprised in Part III. The candidate who has secured such a pass minimum is exempted from re-appearing for that portion of the examination. Hence we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge that the respondent who failed to pass in the entire Part III on the first occasion can claim the benefit of first part ' of Regulation.9 when at the next examination she got 73 marks in Indian History. The respondent having secured only 53 marks in Economics, she failed in that subject as subject minimum for pass is 60 marks. As she has secured only 53 marks, the appellant was right in taking the view that she was not entitled to pass in Part III examination. This deficiency was made good subsequently by securing 74 marks in Economics in the April, 1983 examination. Therefore, she has to be now regarded as having passed the entire Pre Degree examination at least by April, 1983. The University having agreed in the circumstances to treat the respondent has having been property admitted to the College and to announce the results of the I, II and III year B. A. Degree Examination, the question of issuing any further directions does not arise. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed, and the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. No costs.