Judgment:- P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The petitioner underwent the two year MSc degree course in Biochemistry from the School of Medical Education run by Mahatma Gandhi University during the year 1991-93. He appeared for the MSc degree Previous Examination held by Mahatma Gandhi University in July, 1993 and secured 367 marks out of 700 in Papers I to IV. He appeared for the MSc degree Final Examination held in July 1994 and secured 482 marks out of 800 in paper V to VIII. Thereupon Ext.P1 consolidated mark list dated 20.10.1994 was issued. Later, Ext.P2 provisional certificate was issued certifying that the petitioner has passed the MSc degree examination in the second class. Later the original of Ext.P3 degree certificate was issued certifying that the petitioner has passed MSc degree examination in Biochemistry in the IInd class in the examinations held in July 1993 and July 1994. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the School of Medical Education run by the Mahatma Gandhi University in the year 1996. Long thereafter, with a view to emigrate to Canada, he applied for a copy of the mark list of the MSc degree Previous Examination held in July 1993 by submitting an application dated 25.8.2009. A doubt was then expressed that the petitioner has not passed two out of the four papers for which he had appeared in the MSc degree Previous Examination held in July 1993. The matter was placed before the Vice chancellor of the University who issued an order dated 7.7.2010 to recall the mark list, cancel the degree awarded to him and to grant him one more chance to appear for the MSc degree Previous Examination with the same scheme and syllabus. Pursuant thereto, the Controller of the University issued Ext.P4 memo dated 26.7.2010 calling upon the petitioner to return the mark list of the MSc degree Previous Examination and the degree certificate issued to him. He thereupon submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 9.9.2010 to the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Syndicate of the University that met on 13.12.2010 considered the matter and resolved to stick to its earlier decision which led to the issuance of the order dated 7.7.2010. He thereupon submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 9.9.2010 to the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Syndicate of the University that met on 13.12.2010 considered the matter and resolved to stick to its earlier decision which led to the issuance of the order dated 7.7.2010. The Vice Chancellor of the University thereupon issued an order dated 31.12.2010 recalling the mark list issued to the petitioner for the MSc degree Previous Examination, cancelling the degree awarded to him and granting him one more chance to appear for the MSc degree Previous Examination with the same scheme and syllabus. Ext.P6 memo dated 27.6.2011 was thereupon issued. 3. The petitioner's brother had in the meanwhile sent a letter dated 3.8.2010 to the Public Information Officer of the Mahatma Gandhi University wherein he sought the details of the marks awarded to the petitioner in the MSc (Biochemistry) Previous Examination held in July 1993. The Public Information Officer gave Ext.P8 reply dated 21.8.2010 wherein he stated with reference to question No.11 in Ext.P7 letter as follows: "Question No.11: Furnish such details of the Mark List as the maximum marks, minimum marks for pass and the marks secured by Mr. Suresh S. in the M.Sc. Biochemistry Previous (First Year) Examination held in July 1993? Answer to Question No.11: As per above marks, Suresh S. has failed for Paper II and Paper IV. He is to be declared as failed in Previous Examination". 4. The petitioner's brother had in Ext.P7 letter asked for the following information: Question No.17 17. Whether Mr. Suresh S. was declared passed by the Board of Examiners in the whole examinations as per the Scheme of Examination of M.Sc. Biochemistry course in July 1994 or later? The Public Information Officer had in Ext.P8 letter given the following answer to question No.17: Question No.17: Mistakenly declared as passed in whole examination. 5. Whether Mr. Suresh S. was declared passed by the Board of Examiners in the whole examinations as per the Scheme of Examination of M.Sc. Biochemistry course in July 1994 or later? The Public Information Officer had in Ext.P8 letter given the following answer to question No.17: Question No.17: Mistakenly declared as passed in whole examination. 5. The instant writ petition was filed on 12.7.2011 challenging Exts.P4 and P6 and seeking the following reliefs: "i) to issue a writ of order, or direction, declaring the actions of the respondents in issuing Exhibit P1, & Exhibit P3 are legally unsustainable and improper, illegal and arbitrary and quash the Exhibit P4 & P6; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to carry out the rectification of mistake of the University within a short time span allowing the marks already given and issuing the Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P3 by resorting proper remedies without insisting for surrender of the Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P3 and further without insisting the petitioner to sit for re-examination iii) to issue a writ or mandamus or an order or direction to the respondents to issue the corrected first year mark list of the Examination appeared by the petitioner in July 1993". Inter alia, it is contended that sixteen years after the petitioner underwent the course and was declared to have passed the examination, and long after he was appointed in the School of Medical Education based on the qualifications possessed by him, the University cannot take the stand that he has not passed the MSc degree Previous Examination held in July 1993. Relying on Ext.P18 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18743 of 2010, wherein this Court held that the University cannot cancel the examination three years after the student underwent the course and compel the student to write the examination again, it is contended that the petitioner who appeared for the MSc degree Final Examination in July 1994 cannot now be compelled to appear for the MSc degree Previous Examination afresh. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P17 University order dated 17.7.2010 to contend that in any case he is entitled to special moderation. Various other contentions are also raised in the writ petition. 6. A counter affidavit dated 25.7.2011 has been filed on behalf of the Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P17 University order dated 17.7.2010 to contend that in any case he is entitled to special moderation. Various other contentions are also raised in the writ petition. 6. A counter affidavit dated 25.7.2011 has been filed on behalf of the Mahatma Gandhi University. Paragraphs 4 to 10 which are relevant for this case are extracted below: 4. It is submitted that the petitioner pursued M.Sc. Biochemistry course at the School of Biosciences, Mahatma Gandhi University, during the academic year 1991-1994. Due to an oversight, the candidate was declared as passed in the whole examination and consolidated mark-list and degree certificate were issued to him accordingly. 5. The petitioner applied for an additional mark-list of the MSc. previous examinations on 25.8.2009 stating that he has irrecoverably lost the mark-list originally issued to him. On detailed verification of the tabulation register it came to light that the petitioner had secured only 60 marks for paper II General Microbiology and 59 marks for paper IV Immunology and Immuno-chemistry instead of 62.5 marks which was the minimum required for a pass. It was brought to the notice of the Syndicate and as per the Syndicate decision, the petitioner was directed to return the mark-list as per memo dated 26.7.2010. 6. The petitioner thereupon sent a letter of grievance to the Vice Chancellor stating that the mistake on the part of the University has caused severe hardship to him, and requesting the Vice Chancellor for immediate intervention in the matter. 7. The Vice Chancellor issued order on 7.10.2010 to place the matter again before the Syndicate. The Syndicate meeting held on 13.12.2010 considered the matter and resolved to stick on to the earlier decision of the Syndicate meeting held on 5.6.2010 (vide U.O.No.371/EA II/172/10 Exam, dated 7.7.2010) to recall the M.Sc previous mark-list of the petitioner. It was also resolved to grant one more chance to the petitioner to appear for the M.Sc previous examinations with the scheme and syllabus of July 1993. The above decision was communicated to the petitioner vide memo No. EH III/1/2282/2010, dated 27.6.2011. 8. Sri. Jayamohan V, Nadayil Vadakkathil House, Murunthal B. Perinad P.O, Kollam, sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 about the examination details of the petitioner and the same was issued from the section on 21.8.2010. The above decision was communicated to the petitioner vide memo No. EH III/1/2282/2010, dated 27.6.2011. 8. Sri. Jayamohan V, Nadayil Vadakkathil House, Murunthal B. Perinad P.O, Kollam, sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 about the examination details of the petitioner and the same was issued from the section on 21.8.2010. Out of the 4 papers the petitioner had passed only two papers and for paper II and paper IV he respectively secured only 2.5 and 3.5 marks less than the minimum required for a pass. 9. The maximum marks for the previous examination is 700. Minimum marks required for pass is 350 marks. Petitioner secured 367 marks in total. As per the scheme of the previous examination, the total mark for the individual paper is divided into four ie., The candidate has scored only 60 marks for paper II and 59 marks for paper IV. 10. The petitioner has got no legal right to insist that despite the fact that he had in fact not passed the examination he is entitled to get pass mark in the examination in the failed papers without appearing for the examination again. None of the grounds raised by the petitioner is sustainable in law. 7. Shorn of details, the main contention raised in the counter affidavit is that in two of the papers namely in Paper II and Paper IV the petitioner secured only 60 marks and 59 marks respectively as against the minimum requirement of 62.50 marks. 8. I heard Sri. Pradeep P.S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T.A. Shaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Sri. Pradeep P.S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Ext.P1 mark list discloses that the petitioner had secured 367 marks out of 700 in the MSc degree Previous Examination held in July 1993, that the minimum required for a pass was 350 marks, that the aggregate of the marks set out in Ext.P8 reply for Papers I to IV is only 255 marks and therefore, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended with reference to Ext.P9 mark list issued to another candidate who had appeared the MSc degree Previous Examination in Biochemistry held in July 1992 (the same scheme and syllabus) that the maximum marks for each paper is 175 marks, consisting of 75 marks for theory, 25 marks for internal assessment, 25 marks for viva-voce and 25 marks for practicals, that the minimum for a pass is stipulated as 87.5 marks out of 175 marks and therefore the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner who did not secure 62.50 marks has not passed the examination cannot be accepted. It is contended that the minimum required for a pass is stipulated as 87.5 marks in each of the 4 papers meaning thereby that a candidate who has appeared for the MSc degree Previous Examination has to secure 350 marks out of 700 marks to secure a pass, that the petitioner had admittedly secured 367 marks out of 700, that the respondents have no case that the aggregate of the marks secured by him in the MSc degree Previous Examination is not 367 but only 255 and therefore for that reason also, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be accepted. Relying on Ext.P18 judgment of this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that applying the principles laid by this Court therein, the University cannot compel the petitioner to appear afresh for an examination for which he had fist appeared in July 1993. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner lastly contended that in any case, he is entitled to special moderation marks as was granted by Ext.P17 University order dated 17.7.2010. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that as per the regulations, the petitioner ought to have scured a minimum of 62.5 marks in each of the theory papers but he secured only 60 marks for Paper II and 59 marks for Paper IV and was erroneously declared to have passed the examination. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also contended that in any view of the case, the petitioner who has not passed the MSc degree Previous Examination cannot be heard to contend that he should be declared to have passed the examination. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also contended that in any view of the case, the petitioner who has not passed the MSc degree Previous Examination cannot be heard to contend that he should be declared to have passed the examination. 9. Ext.P1 consolidated marklist shows that the petitioner had secured 367 marks out of 700 marks in the MSc degree Previous Examination held in July 1993. Ext.P9 mark list issued to another candidate who had undergone the very same course and had appeared for the very same examination in July 1992 discloses that each paper carries a maximum of 175 marks consisting of 75 marks for theory, 25 marks for internal assessment, 25 marks for viva voce and 50 marks for practicals. The mark list also shows that the minimum required for a pass in each paper is 87.50 marks out of 175. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondents have no case that the petitioner was wrongly awarded 367 marks out of 700 or that he has not secured 367 marks out of 700. All that is stated in the counter affidavit and in Ext.P8 letter given under the Right to Information Act is that the petitioner secured only 60 marks in Paper II and 59 marks in Paper IV as against the required minimum of 62.50. Though in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit it is admitted that the petitioner had secured 367 marks as against the minimum requirement of 350 marks it is contended that he did not secure 50% marks in theory in Paper II and Paper IV. In other words the attempt appears to be show that as per the scheme of the examination a candidate has to secure 50% of the total marks in theory, internal assessment and viva voce (aggregating to 125) that the petitioner secured only 60 marks for Paper II and 59 marks for Paper IV in the aggregate and therefore he has not passed the examination. A copy of the regulations which govern the examination held in 1993 has not been placed on record. Ext.P8 mark list issued to another candidate who appeared for the very same examination held in July 1992 discloses that the minimum required for a pass is 87.5 marks in each paper. A copy of the regulations which govern the examination held in 1993 has not been placed on record. Ext.P8 mark list issued to another candidate who appeared for the very same examination held in July 1992 discloses that the minimum required for a pass is 87.5 marks in each paper. It is not stipulated therein that there is a separate minimum for theory, internal assessment and viva voce and another separate minimum for practicals. All that is seen from Exts.P1 and P9 mark lists is that out of the maximum marks for each paper, the candidate should secure a minimum of 50% namely 87.5 marks. The respondents have no case that the petitioner has not secured 87.5 marks in each of the four papers of the MSc degree Previous Examination. That being the position, as regulations have not been produced or made available, the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner should have secured a minimum of 62.5 marks being 50% of the aggregate of the marks for theory, internal assessment and viva voce (50% of 125 marks) cannot be accepted. 10. The stand taken by the University cannot be accepted for another reason also. The petitioner appeared for the examination in July 1993. The decision to cancel the examination was taken for the first time only on 7.7.2010, exactly 17 years after he appeared for the examination. In the case of an engineering student who appeared for the final semester examination in December 2007, this Court held in Ext.P18 judgment that the student cannot be compelled to appear for another examination after 3 years. In that case it was contended that the student was declared to have passed the examination on account of a mistake committed by the University in adjusting the moderation marks. Relying on the decision of this Court in Sajaikumar v. State of Kerala (2003 (3) KLT S.N.62 (Case No.84)), a learned single Judge of this Court held in Ext.P18 judgment that though the University is entitled to rectify the mistake committed by it in awarding grace marks, it should be done it in a reasonable time. It was held that great hardship will be caused to candidates if mistakes are sought to be rectified after a long lapse of time. In Sajaikumar v. State of Kerala, the mistake was sought to be rectified after four years. It was held that great hardship will be caused to candidates if mistakes are sought to be rectified after a long lapse of time. In Sajaikumar v. State of Kerala, the mistake was sought to be rectified after four years. In the instant case, the mistake alleged to have been committed by the University is sought to be rectified 17 years later. In the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Sajaikumar v. State of Kerala (2003 (3) KLT S.N.62 (Case No.84)) and in Ext.P18 judgment it has to be necessarily held that 17 years after the petitioner wrote the examination, the University cannot on the ground that it had committed a mistake in declaring that he had passed the examination, cancel the examination taken by him, the degree certificate issued to him and compel him to write the examination afresh. In any case, Ext.P17 order dated 17.7.2010 discloses that a student who had undergone the Pre-degree course during the year 1995-97 and was declared to have passed the examination was awarded special moderation marks after it was found that he was wrongly declared to have passed the Pre-degree examination. In the light of the materials on record and for the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. For the reasons stated above, I allow the writ petition, set aside the University order dated 7.7.2010, Ext.P4 memo dated 26.7.2010, the University order dated 31.12.2010 and Ext.P6 memo dated 27.6.2010 and direct the University to treat the petitioner as having pass the MSc degree Previous Examination held in July 1993 and the MSc Degree Final Examination held in July 1994. The University shall forth with issue to the petitioner a mark list showing the marks secured by him in the MSc degree Previous Examination held in July 1993 as was issued to the candidate named in Ext.P10. No costs.