A SYED ALI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have been brought to light in this appeal indicate how a Master's Degree in Laws has been utterly devalued by the authorities of the University by making a rule that Master's degree could be obtained by passing the examination in unlimited number of instalments. Normally, the holder of a Master's degree from a University of the status and reputation of the Madras University would immediately, invoke high regard and respect but if the manner indicated by Regulation 3(A) is the manner in which that degree is to be conferred on the holder of the degree, it will cease to be a symbol of scholarship and erudition which at least some years back a Master's degree, in laws was always looked upon.

(2.) The appellant sat for the M.L. Examination of the Madras University in July 1978 for the first time. Unfortunately for him he failed in all the subjects. In 1979, a new Regulation seems to have been made by the University possibly as a part of its efforts to make University, degree available to those who sought them with ease and comfort. We shall reproduce this regulation namely; Regulation 3(A) later; but the overall effect of that regulation was that if a person had failed in any of the papers at the Master's degree examination, he was entitled to appear indefinitely in the papers in which he had failed and all that was required was to obtain not less than 40% of the marks in each paper to qualify for a pass in the papers'. In the Syllabus for the Master's degree examination of Law, there are six branches. The appellant opted out for branch-VI which related to Property Law. In this branch, the candidate would have to appear for five papers as follows - 1. Transfer of Property in England and India including trusts, settlements and conveyancing. 2. Transfer of Property in England and India sales, mortgages, and leases. 3. Succession, testamentary and intestate. 4. Public Trusts and Charities 5. Customary and Statute Law relating to Land Tenures in India.

(3.) In the examination held in 1979, the appellant secured 48% of marks in the first paper, namely 'Transfer of Property in England and India including trusts, settlements and conveyancing'. In the same year, he also obtained 50 marks in the fourth paper, namely, 'Public Trusts and Charities'. He does not seem to have appeared for any of the three subjects in which he had failed in the year 1980. He sat for the three papers in 1981 and got 41 marks in the fifth paper namely Customary and statute law' relating to Land Tenures in India. He, however; failed in the other two papers. In July 1982 he once again sat for two subjects but he passed only in the third paper having secured just 40 marks. In July 1983, the appellant sat only for the second paper but obtained only 34 marks. According to the appellant he is qualified for the Master's degree in law having obtained more than the requisite marks for a pass and he was, therefore, entitled to be declared as having passed the Master of Law degree examination. When the appellant made his claim for being declared as having passed the Master of Law Examination to the University the University referred him to Regulation 3(A) under which according to the Universities 'candidates while reappearing for the papers in which they failed at subsequent appearances shall obtain not less than 40 per cent of the marks in each paper or qualifying, for a pass in the papers'. The appellant claimed that this regulation came into force subsequent to 1978, when he first registered for the Master of Law degree and it was, therefore, irrelevant in his case. The appellant- petitioner has separately challenged the validity of Regulation 3(A) in a writ petition which is pending, but according to the appellant, notwithstanding Regulation 3(A) his case must be decided in the light of only Regulation-3. This claim has been rejected by the learned Judge, who dismissed his writ petition and that order is challenged in this appeal.