KIRAN B Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Mahatma Gandhi University had sanctioned a six semester degree course in B.Sc. Industrial Fish and Fisheries and the petitioner had underwent the course, studying in the St. Alberts College, Ernakulam. The 6th semester examination for him had been held during May, 2002. Excepting the main paper VIII (Aquarium Fisheries) the petitioner has passed all the papers with more than 70% marks, as could be seen from Ext. P1 mark list. For the paper VIII, Ext. P1 mark list dated 25.7.2002 shows that as against the maximum marks of 60, the minimum marks required for a pass was 21, but the petitioner had been awarded a mark of 0. He is therefore deemed as a failed candidate. This has resulted in the Original Petition being filed.

(2.) The examinations were held in May, 2002 comprising of papers in main subjects as also subsidiary subjects. Practicals, project work, viva voce and internal assessments were also separately conducted. The practice followed, which is not disputed, is that in the case of main papers a common register number is given to a student for all the semesters. However, in respect of subsidiary subjects, the allotment of number for different semesters varies. The petitioner had been allotted the number of 6013 for the main papers.

(3.) The averments in the Original Petition show that students who intended to participate in two courses, namely, (1) B.Sc. Industrial Fish and Fisheries and (2) B.Sc. Aquaculture were grouped in one hall at the time of examination. On the relevant date instead of issuing the question paper for the subject Aquarium Fisheries, the supervising officer, who was acting as an Invigilator for the University had issued to the petitioner a question paper Aquaculture Engineering and Hatchery Technology. The petitioner accepting the question paper had dutifully answered, according to him, to the best of his ability, but unaware that instead of the question paper VIII (Aquarium Fisheries) he had been given a different question paper. We can take his submission at face value, that he was eager to answer all the questions within the prescribed time and had not critically verified the question paper that had been issued to him or noticed the mistake. Though it has come out that in the answer sheet, he had written the name of the examination as Aquaculture Engineering and Hatchery Technology, obviously copied from the question paper, he went on dutifully answering.