SHAFEEK S. Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers :-

(2.) Petitioners, who are B.Arch students who completed their course in the year 2017 and 2018 challenge the fixation of higher percentage of 45% marks in the written examination for applying for a Re-do of the internal assessment as provided in Ext.P6 order. It is submitted that the petitioners had cleared 53 and 54 papers out of the total 55 subjects and had secured 40% in the University examination. However, the 1 st petitioner failed in two papers for want of internal assessment marks and the 2 nd petitioner failed in one paper. It is submitted that there was no provision in the 1st respondent University for re-doing the internal assessment papers and to improve the mark in the internal assessment for B.Arch students. It is stated that the Calicut and Kerala Universities had made provisions for such internal assessment improvement for B.Arch and B.Tech students and the notifications of those Universities provided a minimum requirement of 40% marks in the University examinations for making students eligible for a Re-do. It is submitted that the criteria for an internal assessment Re-do for B.Tech students in the M.G.University is also 40% marks in the University examinations. However, in the case of B.Arch students alone, it is stated that the cut off percentage in University examination is fixed as 45 by Ext.P5 order. It is submitted that the fixation of 45% marks for B.Arch students of the 1st respondent University alone for making them eligible to apply for the Re-do of the internal assessment is illegal being discriminatory and is violative of the valuable rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was absolutely no rational nexus for the classification as among B.Arch students and B.Tech students and also among B.Arch students in different Universities and that as such, the classification is illegal and is liable to be struck down. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner has obtained 44 marks in the theory paper and 19 marks in the internal assessment while the 2 nd petitioner has secured 41% marks in the theory paper and 24 marks in the continuous assessment. It is stated that in the light of Exts.P5 & P6, they are unable to apply for the re-do of their internal assessment and that as such they are discriminated against.