A U PRADEEP Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition was referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court. That is how this Writ Petition comes before us.

(2.) The four writ petitioners filed the Writ Petition on 21-1-1992 seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P1 scheme of examination for M.Com. Course in so far as the said scheme insists securing of a minimum of 35% of marks for viva-voce examination for the purpose of obtaining M.Com. degree. They also seek the consequential declaration that the petitioners must be deemed to have successfully passed the M.Com. examination with Second Class. The four petitioners are privately enrolled candidates for M.Com. Course conducted by the Calicut University. The Course spreads over two years and comprises of compulsory and optional subjects. Part I comprises of compulsory subjects, which are in four papers. Part II comprises of optional subjects which are again in four papers. At the end of each year, there will be examinations comprising of written test and an oral interview or viva-voce. Ext. P1 is the scheme of examinations as published by the Faculty of Commerce of the Calicut in 1990, while the third petitioner appeared for the first year examination in 1986. All the petitioners are said to have secured more than 50% marks in the written examination as per Ext. P2 series. The viva-voce was conducted by the committee consisting of five teachers. These teachers are senior professors, of various colleges affiliated to the University. It is submitted that the private students, such are the petitioners, do not have financial capability to meet the tuition fees of regular colleges or otherwise handicapped in attending regular colleges, and that therefore the scheme is arbitrary in insisting on 35% of minimum marks in the viva-voce examination. It is submitted that for no other academic course in the University, this 35% of pass mark for viva-voce is insisted upon. The petitioners appeared for the final year M.Com. Examination held in April, 1991 and all the petitioners secured more than 55% to 60% marks in the written examination as per Ext. P3 series. However, the petitioners contend that they were deliberately given low marks in viva-voce, and this was done with a view to fail them in the examination. The petitioners therefore contend that the prescription of 35% of minimum marks for the viva-voce examination for M.Com. examination must be declared to be arbitrary. Consequently, it must be declared that the petitioner have passed the M.Com. examination in second class.

(3.) A statement is filed by the respondent University stating that it is the right of the Academic Council of the University to prescribe the necessary qualifications for grant of a degree, and this is mentioned in S.25 of the Calicut University Act, 1975. The University has an Academic Council consisting of experts, who decide the requirements for each course of study, and the same cannot be interfered with by court. It is stated that the viva-voce Board of M.Com. (Final Examination) was constituted with five senior teachers of the Examination Board. In addition to these members, a senior Teacher of the concerned college is also permitted to attend the viva-voce. The interview Board is constituted with senior teachers having vast experience in teaching the post-graduate students and the Board frames the guidelines for conducting the interview and awarding the marks. It is stated that there are also other courses where there is a viva-voce examination with a similar stipulation of minimum marks in the viva-voce examination, as in the case of M.Sc. Statistics. It is stated that in addition to the minimum marks for viva-voce examination for M.Com. degree, the candidates should also secure 40% marks in the aggregate total for a pass in the examination. It is pointed out that in the viva-voce examination held during 1991 more than 270 private candidates have secured pass marks, and in fact there are several private candidates who secured more than 60% marks in the viva-voce examination. It is therefore contended that there is no substance in the point raised in the Writ Petition.