MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR Vs. MUHAZIN K V FATHIMA BHAVAN, KEECHERI, ANCHAMPEEDIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent University in W.P.(C)25614/17 is the appellant before us. For the sake of convenience, the reference to the parties is as in the writ petition. The petitioner was a student of the five year BAL.LL.B. Course in the third respondent college/Government Law College, Ernakulam during the period 2010 - 2015. We are told that the 2010 - 2015 batch was the last batch for the said five year course since, from the academic year 2011 - 2012, there is a new five year course (B.Com. LLB) that has been put in place of the earlier course. The petitioner had not fared well in the Vth , VIth , VIIth , VIIIth and IXth semester internal assessments and accordingly, requested for a chance to redo the internal assessment for the said semesters. The University Regulation, which governs the issue of permission to redo internal assessment is to be found in Annexure I and reads as follows:

(2.) It would appear that the petitioner, by an application submitted within the prescribed period of one year from the date of completion of the course, sought for re-doing the internal assessment for the Vth , VIIth and IXth semesters. The said request of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent University by Ext.P1 order, dated 4.3.2016. With regard to the internal assessments for the VIth and VIIIth semesters, while it is the case of the petitioner that he could not appear for the internal assessments pertaining to the said semesters, he had chosen to wait for the publication of the results of the external examinations before making an application for re-doing the internal, if found necessary. It would appear that, on declaration of the external examination results, he found that he had secured the necessary overall marks in respect of the VIIIth semester, but did not secure the necessary overall marks for a pass in the VIth semester. It is, therefore, that he preferred an application for redoing the internal assessment for the VIth and VIIIth semesters. It is not in dispute that the said application for redoing the internal assessment in respect of VIth and VIIIth semesters was also preferred on 23.9.2016, well within the period of one year from the date of completion of the course, as noted in the University Regulation. The request of the petitioner for redoing the internal assessments for the VIth and VIIIth semesters was, however, rejected by the University by Ext.P6 order dated 23.12.2016, notwithstanding Ext.P3 recommendation by the Government Law College, Ernakulam recommending the case of the petitioner for redoing the internal assessment for the said semesters. The petitioner, therefore, approached this court seeking for a direction to the respondent University to grant permission to the petitioner for redoing the internal assessment for the VIth and VIIIth semesters. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge, taking note of the peculiar factual circumstances, directed the University to take up the request made by the petitioner for redoing the internal assessment for the VIth semester of the BAL.LLB course, taking note of the recommendations of the Principal of the Government Law College, Ernakulam and pass orders on the same as a special case. The said orders were directed to be passed within a period of three weeks from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. By way of abundant caution, the learned Judge also made it clear that the judgment would not be treated as a precedent to be followed in subsequent cases.

(3.) In the appeal before us, the respondent University relies on the order dated 28.6.2003 of the University, extracted above, to point out that the chance for seeking permission to redo an internal assessment is available only once during the period of one academic year after completion of the course. It is pointed out that, at the time of seeking permission for redoing the internal assessment for the Vth , VIIth and IXth semesters, the petitioner had not opted for redoing the internal assessment for the VIth and VIIIth semesters and thereby, he had lost his chance for seeking permission for redoing the assessment for the said semesters. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would point out that the said interpretation placed by the University, on the order dated 28.6.2003, does not flow from the plain language of the said order, and the petitioner was left in a state of uncertainty as to whether the option had to be exercised in respect of all semesters at once or whether it was sufficient to exercise the option in respect of any particular semester once within the period of one academic year after the completion of the course. We note that the learned Single Judge, in the judgment impugned before us, was also persuaded by the said submission regarding ambiguity in the Regulation, and on a perusal of the order dated 28.6.2003, we also cannot find fault with the petitioner for having so understood the terms of the order. Without pronouncing on the correct interpretation to be placed on the said order, and finding that the petitioner's case had been recommended by the college for redoing the internal assessment for the VIth semester, we are inclined to uphold the directions of the learned Single Judge, save endorsing the observations therein which suggest that Annexure 1 order of the second respondent is only a University order and not a Regulation. We effect this modification only because we note that, it is the contention of the university that Annexure A1 order is in fact a Regulation, being one issued in exercise of the powers of the Vice Chancellor under Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985.