A.V.VENUGOPAL RAO Vs. REGISTRAR, ANDHRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE action of the respondents in not issuing LL.M Provisional Certificate to the petitioner is questioned in this writ petition. The petitioner who retired as Deputy Executive Engineer appeared in PGLCET-2007 and qualified for being admitted into LL.M (Two Year) Course. Accordingly, he has joined LL.M (Business Law) in Dr.B.R.Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam in the year 2008 and has completed the Course. When he applied for Provisional Certificate, he was denied the same by the respondents on the ground that in two subjects, namely, Legal Education & Research Methodology and Law of Export - Import Regulations, in II Semester, he did not get 40% of marks in the theory components of the said two papers. Questioning this action, he has filed this writ petition. I have heard Sri P.Bala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel representing the petitioner, and Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra University appearing for the respondents. On a careful perusal of the respective pleadings of the parties, the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is under obligation to secure 40% of marks in each component of the papers.

(2.) THE learned Standing Counsel placed before the Court the Regulations and Syllabi relating to LL.M Degree Course. Regulation 12 thereof which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under:

(3.) AS rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents cannot introduce a procedure which is not authorized by the Regulations made by the competent authority. As noted above, Regulation 12 of the Regulations which governs the issue does not either expressly or by necessary implication prescribe 40% minimum marks in each component of the paper. The Board of Studies in Law, in its resolution noted above has taken note of the fact that the Regulations do not lay down any such requirement. The respondents failed to show the basis on which the Assistant Registrar (Academic) addressed his letter, dated 03.03.2004, when the purported Regulation he has quoted is not found in the Regulations. The University, therefore, cannot enforce on its students a requirement which is not prescribed by it by way of statutes or Regulations and the same cannot stand scrutiny of the Courts.