JANHARLAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner obtained admission for the B.Tech (Mechanical) degree course in a private engineering college of which the third respondent is the Principal. Petitioner attended the first and second semester examinations. When the University examined the credentials of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner did not acquire the prescribed qualification as he got only 66 marks out of 200 in the additional Mathematics paper in his Pre Degree examination. The minimum mark for a pass is 70. Thereupon, the Principal of the college was asked to verify as to whether the petitioner had passed in additional Mathematics and also whether he has secured the minimum marks required in Physics, Chemistry and Maths as per regulations of the University. Principal replied (Ext. P3) to the University stating that he had obtained 90 marks in Part I and II, if the marks for initial appearance and the second appearance have been taken together. As per the rules of the University, marks of two appearances will not be taken together, unless one passes both the papers in the same attempt. Petitioner has not passed the examination in first attempt. Accordingly Ext. P4 memo was issued to him. The only question now arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether the petitioner had obtained sufficient marks in Mathematics papers in his pre degree examination as required for admission to B.Tech degree course. It is an admitted fact before me by the counsel for the petitioner that in order to get admission to B.Tech degree course, a candidate should get atleast 70 marks for Mathematics papers.

(2.) The petitioner was a student of 2nd group of Pre degree. Mathematics papers were not included in it. Hence petitioner took Mathematics as an additional paper in order to appear for entrance examination for B.Tech degree. Petitioner appeared for Mathematics examination in April 1999 and secured 40 marks in Paper I and 26 marks in Part II, altogether 66, i.e., 4 marks less than the marks required for minimum pass. Pass in Mathematics is taken on an aggregate of marks for both papers. As the petitioner has failed in the Mathematics papers, the petitioner made a second attempt in April 2000, ie., next year. In that attempt the petitioner was able to obtain only 8 marks for the Paper I and 50 marks in Part II, altogether only 58 marks, as against 70 marks required for pass. Thus he failed. At least a pass in Maths is necessary for admission to B.Tech degree course. Thus the petitioner repeated his miserable failure in Mathematics. The petitioner submits that if the marks obtained in Mathematics for Paper I in 1999 in his first attempt and for Paper II in 2000 in his second attempt are taken together, petitioner has obtained the required marks. To substantiate this contention, the petitioner relies on Ext. P6, Hand Book on Courses and Examinations. Part 12.1 of thereof provides as follows:

(3.) Petitioner submits that marks of the Paper I in the first attempt shall be retained and mark in the Paper II in the second attempt shall be taken together. This contention is attractive one. But this contention is raised without looking into the Heading of Chap.12 - Rules regarding re - appearance for improvement at University Examinations. Improvement arises only when one has passed a subject and not satisfied with the marks obtained. In this case the petitioner has not passed in Mathematics in his first attempt. He really failed. Pass is recorded taking marks for both the papers in the same attempt. As is seen from Ext. R1(b) Marklist for 1st attempt he should have secured 70 marks for a pass. But he got only 66 (Paper I - 40 and Paper II - 26) in his first appearance. He could have written an improvement examination only if he had passed and in such case he could have retained the marks of 1st appearance. Therefore there arise no question of improvement of the marks. The petitioner had to reappear for both papers as the petitioner had not passed in the first attempt. Hence it cannot be taken as improvement of marks. Part (ii) of the aforequoted provision reads as follows: