P KANNAN Vs. PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) W. P. No. 33200 of 2003 was in the list. It was stated by the counsel for both parties that connected writ petition namely W. P. No. 33731 of 2003 filed by the very same petitioner was pending and both the matters may be taken up together. On consent of the counsel appearing for both parties, the records in W. P. No. 33731 of 2003 were also called for and both are being disposed of by the present common order.

(3.) ON careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I am unable to accept the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents to the effect that petitioner must be taken to have waived his right. It is now apparent that at the time when the petitioner appeared for the examination in May 2003, the detailed mark list had not been furnished to him by the college in question. It is of course, true that the University was not at fault. However, fact remains that the petitioner was not aware of the exact marks and therefore cannot be stated that by merely appearing at the subsequent examination, he had waived his right. Unless a person being aware of his rights consciously decides to waive his rights, the principle of waiver does not apply. The submissions made by the counsel for the University is therefore not acceptable.