UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Vs. ALEX SAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two Writ Appeals, a common question of law arises. The learned Single Judge by. the impugned judgment declared that Clause.9(a) (ii) of the guidelines prescribed by the University as arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The Appellant University challenges the decision.

(2.) We heard appellants' counsel and counsel for the respondents. Petitioners in the Original Petition had appeared for the Pre degree examination conducted by the appellant University. In anticipation of the result, they appeared for Engineering entrance examination. In order to get admission to the Engineering course, candidates belonging to general category must obtain a minimum of 50 per cent and candidates belonging to other backward communities a minimum of 45 percent marks in the qualifying examination. In the Pre degree examination, these students could not secure the minimum marks required for getting admission to Engineering course. They filed application for revaluation. Even by the marks obtained by them after revaluation, they were not eligible to get admission to engineering course. The petitioners in the O.P. contended that they had in fact secured additional marks on revaluation but those marks were not added to the original marks secured by them as it was less than 5 per cent of the total marks. This was so done in view of Clause.9(a)(ii) of the guidelines prescribed by the University for revaluation. Clause.9 of the guidelines reads as follows:

(3.) According to the contesting respondents, C1.9(a)(ii) is arbitrary and illegal as the candidates are not allowed to get the actual additional marks received by them on revaluation. The revaluation is done by two examiners. The examiners are not told about the original marks secured by the candidate. On revaluation, the average marks is taken and if it is less than the marks secured in the original valuation the original marks will prevail. If it exceeds the original Marks by more than 5 percent then it will be added to the original marks, and final marks will be awarded. According to counsel for the University, this decision was taken after much deliberation and the procedure is fair and reasonable, whereas the contesting respondents would contend that this provision is arbitrary.