PRASHANTH E L Vs. KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of considerable importance that would arise for consideration in this petition is, what is the interpretation to be placed to the word "repeater" at the University Examination?

(2.) THE few facts which are not in serious dispute and which are relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as hereunder :

(3.) SRI Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the interpretation placed by the University on the Regulations of the University regarding the assignment of ranking to a student, is totally erroneous in law. It is his submission that since the petitioner had secured higher percentage of marks than all other candidates who had passed the Post-Graduation Degree Examination during the academic year 1999-2000 and since it is not in dispute that the petitioner was forced to leave the Examination Hall within a few minutes of his writing the examination on account of his ill-health and physical disability to write the examination, he cannot be treated as a 'repeater' at the University examination in terms of Regulation-6 of the Regulations of the University. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the object of the Regulation is to assign ranking to a more meritorious student and that being the object, if a student is prevented from writing the examination on account of the circumstances beyond his control, like serious ill-health, within few minutes of his writing the examination, such a student cannot be treated as a 'repeater' for the purpose of Regulation-6 of the Regulations. Therefore, he submits that in this case, since there is no dispute that the petitioner was compelled to leave the Examination Hall on account of his serious ill-health within a few minutes of writing the examination; and his subsequent performance clearly shows that he is academically far superior to other students who had pursued their Post-Graduation Degree Course during the academic year 1999-2000, it will be totally unjust and unfair on the part of the University to deny the first rank to the petitioner. In this connection, learned counsel further pointed out that no student would take a risk of writing the I Year Examination paper along with the papers of the II Year Examination. The fact that the petitioner though has written the papers of I and II Year Post-Graduation Degree Examinations simultaneously and in the said examinations, he has secured more marks than all other students, who had appeared for the II Year Examination, only shows that the petitioner is academically far superior to the other students who had appeared for the Examination. Sri Krishna Murthy, in support of his contention, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit v. Dean, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, AIR 1987 SC 1362 and that of this Court in the case of Sandeep Shenai v. Mangalore University, Mangalore, AIR 1992 Kant 202 and also that of the Delhi High Court in the case of Master Vibhu Kapoor v. Council of Indian School Certificate Examination, AIR 1985 Delhi 142.