Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 732 (KER)

Seby C Antony v. Mahatma Gandhi University

2025-03-25

T.R.RAVI

body2025
JUDGMENT : T.R.RAVI, J. The writ petition has been filed by a party in person. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not awarded the grace marks of 25% for the theory papers for all the semesters, to which he claims entitled, being a differently abled person. It is submitted that if he is awarded grace marks, he will secure the required 75% marks in his B.Com. LLB (Hons.) Course, which would in turn enable him to get admission to the Ph.D. programme under the University. 2. The questions to be decided are; (i) whether a person who has undergone the Undergraduation course of B.Com LLB (Hons.) is entitled to aspire for admission to Ph.D. course and if so, (ii) whether the petitioner has the required minimum marks for getting admission to the course ? 3. Regarding the question whether persons who have completed Undergraduate course are entitled for admission to Ph.D. course, reliance is placed on Regulation 3 of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2022 dealing with the eligibility criteria for admission to the Ph.D. programme. Regulation 3 reads thus: “(1) Candidates who have completed: i. A 1-year/2-semester master's degree programme after a 4-year/8-semester bachelor’s degree programme or a 2-year/4-semester master’s degree programme after a 3-year bachelor’s degree programme or qualifications declared equivalent to the master’s degree by the corresponding statutory regulatory body, with at least 55% marks in aggregate or its equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed Or equivalent qualification from a foreign educational institution accredited by an assessment and accreditation agency which is approved, recognized or authorized by an authority, established or incorporated under a law in its home country or any other statutory authority in that country to assess, accredit or assure quality and standards of the educational institution. A relaxation of 5% marks or its equivalent grade may be allowed for those belonging to SC/ST/OBC(non-creamy layer)/Differently-Abled, Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and other categories of candidates as per the decision of the Commission from time to time. Provided that a candidate seeking admission after a 4-year/8-semester bachelor’s degree programme should have a minimum of 75% marks in aggregate or its equivalent grade on a point scale wherever the grading system is followed. Provided that a candidate seeking admission after a 4-year/8-semester bachelor’s degree programme should have a minimum of 75% marks in aggregate or its equivalent grade on a point scale wherever the grading system is followed. A relaxation of 5% marks or its equivalent grade may be allowed for those belonging to SC/ST/OBC(non-creamy layer)/ Differently-Abled, Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and other categories of candidates as per the decision of the Commission from time to time. (2) Candidates who have completed the M.Phil. programme with at least 55% marks in aggregate or its equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed or equivalent qualification from a foreign educational institution accredited by an assessment and accreditation agency which is approved, recognized or authorized by an authority, established or incorporated under a law in its home country or any other statutory authority in that country to assess, accredit or assure quality and standards of educational institutions, shall be eligible for admission to the Ph.D. programme. A relaxation of 5% marks or its equivalent grade may be allowed for those belonging to SC/ST/OBC (non- creamy layer)/Differently-Abled, Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and other categories of candidates as per the decision of the Commission from time to time.” 4. The main part of Regulation 3 says that the minimum requirement is a Post Graduate Degree. It can be seen from the proviso to Regulation 3 (1) that a candidate seeking admission after a 4-year/8-semester bachelor's degree programme should have a minimum of 75% marks in aggregate or its equivalent grade on a point scale wherever grading system is followed. The proviso also says that there will be a relaxation of 5% marks or its equivalent grade for persons belonging to the SC/ST/OBC (non-creamy layer)/Differently-Abled, economically Weaker Section (EWS) and other categories of candidates as per the decision of the Commission from time to time. There is a lack of clarity since the first part of the Regulation does not specifically recognise a 4-year/8-semester Bachelors Degree Programme as an eligibility. Such an eligibility will have to be read into the Regulation by virtue of the proviso. To that extent, the Regulation is not happily worded. There is a lack of clarity since the first part of the Regulation does not specifically recognise a 4-year/8-semester Bachelors Degree Programme as an eligibility. Such an eligibility will have to be read into the Regulation by virtue of the proviso. To that extent, the Regulation is not happily worded. The contention of the petitioner is that he is required to obtain only 70% marks after giving credit to the relaxation of 5% in his Undergraduate degree which is a five year course in LLB and the petitioner is also entitled to grace marks from the University to add up to the 70% marks. 5. The 1 st respondent University has filed a counter affidavit. According to the counter affidavit, the University has granted grace marks to the petitioner from the 5 th to 10 th semesters for his Undergraduate course. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to grace marks for semesters 1 to 4. The counter affidavit says that as per the University Order 2205/01/Ac AVIII/2016 dated 16.04.2016 regarding the distribution of grace marks to the students of professional courses, the performing year/academic year is to be taken from 1 st June to 31 st May and the 2018 admission students will complete their 5 th and 6 th semesters during the period 01.06.2020 to 31.05.2021 as per the said order. It is stated that the petitioner was in the 5 th semester on the 1 st day of June, 2020 and hence he has been awarded the marks from the 5 th semester. Ext.P2 is the order dated 11.07.2022 by which concessions were extended to persons with disabilities. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a person with multiple disabilities. Where a person has multiple disabilities of 40% and above, he will be entitled to 25% grace mark as per Ext.P2. Ext.P2 order was followed by Ext.P3 order. The counter affidavit further says that the minimum qualification for a Ph.D. programme is a Masters Degree or a Professional Degree declared as equivalent to a Masters Degree by the Mahatma Gandhi University with at least 55% marks in the aggregate. Another submission is that the four year Undergraduate programme cannot be equated to the five year LLB Course and the UGC Regulations does not speak about the five year LLB Course when it speaks about the eligibility for Ph.D. programme. Another submission is that the four year Undergraduate programme cannot be equated to the five year LLB Course and the UGC Regulations does not speak about the five year LLB Course when it speaks about the eligibility for Ph.D. programme. Another contention taken is that the five year Integrated B.Com. LLB (Hons.) Course is a dual Degree Course and does not have the status of a Post Graduate Masters Degree. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit stating that grace marks have been granted for several other courses. The Standing Counsel for the University has produced an order dated 14.02.2025 along with a memo. The said order has been issued after hearing the petitioner regarding the question of grace marks. As per the order dated 19.05.2023, students who were admitted in 2018, were to be granted grace marks only from the academic year 2020. It is contended that the petitioner is eligible only for grace marks in the semesters 5 to 10. The petitioner has a case that the examinations for the semesters 1 to 4 were also held after the academic year 2020 and hence he is entitled to the benefit of grace marks for all the semesters since what is relevant is the date of conduct of the examination and not the notional date during which the petitioner should have completed the semesters. 7. Heard the petitioner in person, Sri Surin George Ipe, Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent University, Sri Rejith, Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of India and Sri S.Krishnamoorthy Standing Counsel for the UGC . 8. The prayer in the writ petition is worded as follows; “It is humbly prayed that, unless MG University declares that the Grace Marks for Disabled students are not intended for the whole semesters of a course, this court be pleased to issue an order/Direction to MG University, to strictly follow the direction of order No 3965/El 37/2024 MGU dated 13.05.2024 and provide me grace marks of 25% for the theory papers for all my semesters as mandated and envisaged in the master Order.” 9. The order dated 13.05.2024 that is referred to in the prayer is Ext.P5 in the writ petition. The order dated 13.05.2024 that is referred to in the prayer is Ext.P5 in the writ petition. Ext.P5 is an order passed on a request made by the petitioner and all that is stated is that considering Exts.P2 and P3 orders issued by the University, it was decided to grant 25% grace mark in theory papers for the University Examinations subsequent to the academic year 2020. The stand of the University is that the said benefit has already been given. A reading of Ext.P5 would show that the above direction is issued on the basis of Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 order is a modification of Ext.P2 order which is issued earlier regarding the award of grace marks. In Ext.P3, what is ordered is that the benefits of Ext.P2 order dated 11.07.2022 can be extended to differently abled candidates who were admitted from 2018, on their request, from the academic year 2020. It is thus evident that the candidate who has joined in the year 2018 cannot get the benefit of the grace mark for the years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Merely for the reason that the examinations got delayed, the effect of Ext.P3 order cannot be diluted. It is particularly so since what is provided is a grace mark for which there is no right for a student. This is all the more so for the reason that going by the UGC Regulations, a PwD candidate will be entitled to only 5% relaxation from the marks which are to be the minimum as far as the other students are concerned. The effect of Ext.P3 cannot be extended in order to create a situation where the relaxation would result in prescription of a mark much below the eligible mark for admission. Going by the UGC Regulations, a student who has undergone a four year undergraduate course needs 75% marks for getting direct admission to a Ph.D. Course. The high percentage of 75% has been prescribed since in the usual course a person with the Post Graduate Degree alone would be entitled to aspire to undergo the Ph.D. Course. A benefit is thus granted to a person who is undergoing a four year graduation course, if he secures high percentage of marks, to undergo the Ph.D. Course even without a Post Graduation. A benefit is thus granted to a person who is undergoing a four year graduation course, if he secures high percentage of marks, to undergo the Ph.D. Course even without a Post Graduation. If the contention of the petitioner is admitted, it would result in a relaxation of 30% marks from the required 75% and a candidate who has secured 45% in an undergraduate course would become eligible for undergoing a Ph.D. Course. The very purpose of the Regulation issued by the UGC is to ensure minimum standards and procedures for award of a Ph.D. Degree. A further relaxation from the minimum standards prescribed and that too resulting in a bare minimum percentage, which is even less than 50%, can never be the intent and purpose of the notification issued by the UGC. Moreover, Regulation 3 does not stipulate grant of any grace marks. It is highly doubtful whether a candidate who is already entitled to relaxation of 5% as per Regulation 3 can claim further relaxation of 25% as per an order issued by the University. It is settled law that the University can prescribe higher standards than what is prescribed by the UGC. However, the extent of autonomy of the University cannot result in a total reduction of the standards fixed by the UGC. 10. It is also highly doubtful whether the purpose of Exts.P2 and P3 orders is to extend the benefit of the grace mark for the purpose of attaining the minimum required marks for higher education. A reading of Exts.P2 and P3 would suggest that the grace marks are granted in examinations to facilitate students who are differently abled to successfully complete the course with the help of the grace marks. Even going by Exts.P2 and P3, it is clear that grace marks can be granted only if a student has got at least 5% marks and a distribution of the marks is also facilitated. It can thus be seen that a student who has 5% marks, with relaxation may be able to take it to 30%, At that same time, it will be ridiculous to suggest that a person who has got 75% marks can add the 25% and say that he has secured 100%. Grant of grace marks is not for such purposes. 11. Grant of grace marks is not for such purposes. 11. In the case on hand, the petitioner will be able to secure 75% marks only by adding 25% marks for all the semesters and an additional 5% marks which is the relaxation granted under the UGC Regulation. As already observed, even if Exts.P2 and P3 were to be applied, I am of the opinion that the petitioner will be able to get the grace marks only for the examinations relating to the academic years 2020 onwards. The delay in conduct of the first four semester examinations will not give any added benefit. If such a benefit is granted, it would result in a clear arbitrariness since a benefit which would not have been available if the examinations were conducted in time, would be allowed to the petitioner. The petitioner is hence not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.