JOSEPH THALAKKAL Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER had his B.Sc.degree course in Chemistry in the St.Albert's College.He completed full three year in 1987 and passed in Parts I and II.He then gave up,B.Sc.for his own reasons and applied for admission to B.A.Philosophy in the Maharaja's College,Ernakulam.Permission was granted under Ext.P -8.Since he completed the B.Sc.course and passed in parts I and II and what was involved was only change of optionals,he need study only for the second and third year courses for B.A.and he need only appear for the subjects and get a pass to take his B.A.degree.After completing the first year(second year B.A.) he wrote for the first year main subjects and second year subsidiary subjects in 1988 and then continued and completed his studies for the final year in 1989.Then he was informed by Ext.P -2 memo that the examinations written by him in 1988 are cancelled.The reason is that he could have written the entire subject papers only at a stretch and that too only in 1989 after completing the two years course.After Ext.P -2 he wrote for the remaining subject papers in April,1989.By Ext.P -2 he was directed to write all the papers in April,1989.Prayer is that Ext.P -2 may be quashed and his result directed to be declared and he be given the mark list.

(2.) THE question involved is only interpretation of Regulation.18 of the B.A./B.Sc.regulations extracted in Ext.P -8 and relied on at page 2 of the counter.It reads thus:

(3.) PETITIONER was able to write the papers piecemeal only because his applications for registration were allowed and he was given hall tickets and permitted to write for the examinations.It was contended on behalf of the respondents that violation of the regulation became known only after the petitioner got himself registered and appeared for the examination in 1988.It is said that even after that he wrote the final examination in 1989 in spite of Ext.P -2.That is also because,he was registered and permitted.If he was not eligible,the University ought not have permitted him to write for the examinations.There is no case that the petitioner was guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation.The University cannot now penalise the petitioner for the inactions of itself and its officers in permitting the petitioner to write for the examinations ignoring or overlooking the prohibition,if any.