RAMKUMAR R. Vs. CALICUT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, inter alia, seek a direction to the second respondent to extend the benefit of Ext.P5 notification to the petitioners also, to redo their internal examinations.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is confining his relief to the first petitioner alone, as he has no instructions from the second petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with respect to the second petitioner, which was permitted. Therefore, I limit the determination of the writ petition only in respect of the first petitioner.

(3.) It is a case of the first petitioner that he was a five year LLB student in the 4th respondent Law College during the period 2010-2015. The first petitioner failed to secure pass percentage in the fifth semester - Law of Contract paper and the seventh semester - Company Law paper. The first petitioner had secured 31% in Law of Contract paper and 32% in the Company Law paper. He was precluded from doing his internal examination, on the alleged ground of shortage of attendance. In the above circumstances, the first petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application before the second respondent, on 2.8.2019, seeking to redo his internal examination. The first petitioner has relied on Ext.P3 order issued by the first respondent - University according sanction to all students of the first batch of BBA- LLB course (2011 admission), for obtaining minimum pass marks for their internal examination, they have been granted one more chance to improve their internal assessment.