SOMANANDAN K. Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are students of the part-time B.Tech course. Their main grievance is that in spite of the mandate contained in the relevant University Ordinance and the two earlier judgments of this court, the respondents are not conducting two examinations every year and this fact coupled with the fact that a student cannot appear in the succeeding semester examination before completing the previous semester examination, results in great loss to the petitioners. The petitioners are thus complaining that the length of the courts gets unnecessarily extended leading to loss of opportunities to the students and delaying their obtaining the requisite degree.

(2.) Earlier complaining that only one examination was conducted during the academic years 1986-87 and 1987-88 and no supplementary examinations were conducted during those years. Some of the students approached this court with O.P. Nos. 6233 of 1988 and O.P. 6631 of 1988. A contention was raised on behalf of the University and the State that there was no obligation on them to conduct two examinations every year in terms of the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978. This court by judgment dated 1st September 1988 held that it was obligatory on the part of the University to hold two examinations in an year and the University was directed to comply with the requirement of Ordinance 1 of Chap.7 of Kerala University 1st Ordinance, 1978 and to hold the supplementary examination for the B.Tech part-time course. Though the dispute related to those two particular academic years referred to above, obviously the direction issued by this court had general application and one would have normally expected the University to comply with the directions in that judgment. But, the University did not take steps to conduct two examinations every year as ordered in that judgment which resulted in the students, again approaching this court with another Original Petition, O.P. 12256 of 1992. This court by judgment dated 30th October 1992 again directed the University to hold a supplementary examination for all students who appeared in the regular examination held in October, 1991. This court also permitted the students who had attended the third year classes to appear in the regular examinations in the third year whether or not they had already passed the first year examinations but that their results need be published only after they passed their first year examinations.

(3.) In the present Original Petition the petitioners have approached this court challenging the rejection of their applications for registration for appearance on the third and fourth year semester examinations on the ground that they had not completed all the papers in the earlier semesters. There is no dispute that unless a student passes all the papers in the previous semesters, he is not entitled to appear for the examinations of the next semester, That rule adopted by the University is not in question. The complaint of the petitioners is that the University cannot deny the petitioners right to appear for the third and fourth semester examinations even without completing all the papers in the 1st and 2nd semester examinations or the third semester examinations since it was the failure of the University to hold a supplementary examination every year that has led to the students not passing all their papers in the previous semesters. The petitioners rely on the earlier decisions of this court to contend that there is obligation on the respondents to hold the semester examinations in time and since it was due to their fault that the petitioners have been deprived of an opportunity to write a supplementary examination and to qualify, the insistence on having passed all the subjects in the previous semester examinations should not be enforced against the petitioners and the said condition should be waived. Learned counsel for the University submits that the University has been trying to hold two examinations every year as envisaged by the Ordinance and that it is due to the number of examinations that have to be held that sometimes it is not possible to hold two examinations the same year. In the face of the clear mandate in the Ordinance and in the light of the clear directions contained in the judgment in O.Ps. 6233 and 6631 of 1988 and the subsequent decision in O.P. 12256 of 1992, the University cannot be heard to say that the University could not hold two examinations during the same year. It is for the University to ensure that two examinations are held every year. In my view the direction in the judgment in O.P. Nos. 6233 and 6631 of 1988 are general in nature and it is applicable to all the years and cannot be confined in its operation to any particular year. It is therefore clear that the University is bound to conduct two examinations every year for the courses in question in view of the said direction based on the Ordinance governing the question. To put the matter beyond doubt, I think it appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus to the University directing the University to conduct two examinations every year as envisaged by Ordinance 1, Schedule VII of the Kerala University 1st Ordinance, 1978 from the year 1996 onwards.