Somanandan K. v. University Of Kerala — 1995 DIGILAW 354 (KER)

JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners are students of the part-time B.Tech course. Their main grievance is that in spite of the mandate contained in the relevant University Ordinance and the two earlier judgments of this court, the respondents are not conducting two examinations every year and this fact coupled with the fact that a student cannot appear in the succeeding semester examination before completing the previous semester examination, results in great loss to the petitioners. The petitioners are thus complaining that the length of the courts gets unnecessarily extended leading to loss of opportunities to the students and delaying their obtaining the requisite degree. 2. Earlier complaining that only one examination was conducted during the academic years 1986-87 and 1987-88 and no supplementary examinations were conducted during those years. Some of the students approached this court with O.P. Nos. 6233 of 1988 and O.P. 6631 of 1988. A contention was raised on behalf of the University and the State that there was no obligation on them to conduct two examinations every year in terms of the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978. This court by judgment dated 1st September 1988 held that it was obligatory on the part of the University to hold two examinations in an year and the University was directed to comply with the requirement of Ordinance 1 of Chap.7 of Kerala University 1st Ordinance, 1978 and to hold the supplementary examination for the B.Tech part-time course. Though the dispute related to those two particular academic years referred to above, obviously the direction issued by this court had general application and one would have normally expected the University to comply with the directions in that judgment. But, the University did not take steps to conduct two examinations every year as ordered in that judgment which resulted in the students, again approaching this court with another Original Petition, O.P. 12256 of 1992. This court by judgment dated 30th October 1992 again directed the University to hold a supplementary examination for all students who appeared in the regular examination held in October, 1991. This court also permitted the students who had attended the third year classes to appear in the regular examinations in the third year whether or not they had already passed the first year examinations but that their results need be published only after they passed their first year examinations. 3. This court also permitted the students who had attended the third year classes to appear in the regular examinations in the third year whether or not they had already passed the first year examinations but that their results need be published only after they passed their first year examinations. 3. In the present Original Petition the petitioners have approached this court challenging the rejection of their applications for registration for appearance on the third and fourth year semester examinations on the ground that they had not completed all the papers in the earlier semesters. There is no dispute that unless a student passes all the papers in the previous semesters, he is not entitled to appear for the examinations of the next semester, That rule adopted by the University is not in question. The complaint of the petitioners is that the University cannot deny the petitioners right to appear for the third and fourth semester examinations even without completing all the papers in the 1st and 2nd semester examinations or the third semester examinations since it was the failure of the University to hold a supplementary examination every year that has led to the students not passing all their papers in the previous semesters. The petitioners rely on the earlier decisions of this court to contend that there is obligation on the respondents to hold the semester examinations in time and since it was due to their fault that the petitioners have been deprived of an opportunity to write a supplementary examination and to qualify, the insistence on having passed all the subjects in the previous semester examinations should not be enforced against the petitioners and the said condition should be waived. Learned counsel for the University submits that the University has been trying to hold two examinations every year as envisaged by the Ordinance and that it is due to the number of examinations that have to be held that sometimes it is not possible to hold two examinations the same year. In the face of the clear mandate in the Ordinance and in the light of the clear directions contained in the judgment in O.Ps. 6233 and 6631 of 1988 and the subsequent decision in O.P. 12256 of 1992, the University cannot be heard to say that the University could not hold two examinations during the same year. In the face of the clear mandate in the Ordinance and in the light of the clear directions contained in the judgment in O.Ps. 6233 and 6631 of 1988 and the subsequent decision in O.P. 12256 of 1992, the University cannot be heard to say that the University could not hold two examinations during the same year. It is for the University to ensure that two examinations are held every year. In my view the direction in the judgment in O.P. Nos. 6233 and 6631 of 1988 are general in nature and it is applicable to all the years and cannot be confined in its operation to any particular year. It is therefore clear that the University is bound to conduct two examinations every year for the courses in question in view of the said direction based on the Ordinance governing the question. To put the matter beyond doubt, I think it appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus to the University directing the University to conduct two examinations every year as envisaged by Ordinance 1, Schedule VII of the Kerala University 1st Ordinance, 1978 from the year 1996 onwards. 4. As regards the claim of the petitioners that they should be permitted to appear for the third and fourth semester examinations without passing all the subjects in the previous semesters, the same cannot be allowed. There is no challenge to the rule that only on passing all the papers of the previous semesters a student is eligible to appear for the examinations in the succeeding semesters. That rule has been followed by the University. The enforcement of the said rule is necessary to maintain the academic excellence and to maintain the quality of education. Such provision cannot also be said to be in any manner unreasonable or improper. As I noticed earlier there is no challenge to that requirement in this Original Petition. The only contention is that if the University had conducted a supplementary examination, the students could have appeared therein and could have passed all the papers and since they could not attempt the supplementary examinations due to the default of the University in conducting supplementary examinations, the condition above referred to should be waived. I am not satisfied that this court would be justified in waiving such a condition imposed in the interests of maintaining the standards in higher education. I am not satisfied that this court would be justified in waiving such a condition imposed in the interests of maintaining the standards in higher education. Education has become highly competitive and unless a graduate coming out of a University is really equipped and proficient, in the present competitive world he will be left behind when compared with Engineering Graduates from other Universities. Therefore any watering down of the requirement in that regard should not be undertaken by the court, If the petitioners feel that they have suffered any damages in view of the failure of the University to perform its obligation, the petitioners would certainly be entitled to file a suit for damages as against the University and claim damages on the basis of the principles laid down in the decision in University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai 1991 (1) KLT 812 relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact that such a remedy may be open to the petitioners is not a ground for directing the University to permit them to write the third and fourth semester examinations as prayed for in this Original Petition even before passing all the subjects in the previous semester examinations. I therefore decline that prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. I feel that court must be cautious in watering down the conditions imposed by the relevant regulations for maintaining the proper standards in education. In that view, in any event I am not inclined to exercise my discretion to grant such a relief to the petitioners in this Original Petition though based on the direction in O.P. 12256 of 1992, learned counsel for the petitioners exhorts me to do so. In the result, while declining to issue a direction to permit the petitioners to appear for the third and fourth semester examinations before passing all the papers in the previous semester examinations, I direct the respondents to conduct two examinations every year as envisaged by Clause.1 Chap.7 of the Kerala University First Ordinance, 1978 from the year 1996 onwards. Since the main examination for 1995 has already been announced, I decline the prayer for the issuance of a direction to conduct the supplementary examinations first before holding the main examinations. Since the main examination for 1995 has already been announced, I decline the prayer for the issuance of a direction to conduct the supplementary examinations first before holding the main examinations. I reserve the right of the petitioners to approach appropriate civil court for the establishment of any claim for damages that they may have because of the failure to conduct two examinations in an year. The Original Petition is disposed of with the above. directions. I make no order as to costs.