Ahmed Riyas K.M. and Others v. University of Kannur

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 AHMED RIYAS K.M, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.B.H.A.MOHAMMED ALI, RIYANA MANZIL, AYYANGOLE ROAD, KALANAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** - **2 HARIS T., AGED 21 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, KUNNARATH HOUSE, THAYALTHOTTI, PALLIKARA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** - **3 MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A., AGED 21 YEARS S/O. K.M.ABDULLA KUNHI, KOLIKKADAVU HOUSE, 4TH MILE, MIDAD NAGAR, ALAMPADI P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** - **4 MUHAMMED HASEEB T.K., AGED 20 YEARS S/O. MOOSA KUNHI T.K., THEKKEKARA HOUSE, UDMA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, (REGISTER NO.MTO8BBMR35).** - **BY ADVS. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SMT.CISSY MATHEWS** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 567.** - **2 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMS UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 567.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN, SC** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners, who underwent the Bachelor of Business Management Course in an aided College under the Kannur University from 2008-2009 to 2010-2011, are aggrieved by the criteria adopted by the University for conversion of their grade to percentage of marks. 2. Petitioners stated that the BBM Course they had undergone was the first batch conducted under affiliation to the first respondent University. All the petitioners secured grade B. In the case of first petitioner his Grade Point Average (CGPA) was 3.22. It is stated that they have to pass 17 subjects with a total marks of 128 for each (i.e., 108 marks for the University Exams and 20 marks for internal exams). It is the contention of the petitioners that they were issued mark/grade cards specifying their grade point average (GPA) which was calculated by converting the marks secured by a student out of 128, into marks secured in **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** **==> picture [7 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** units of 4 and it will be given in the grade card. The grade card also shows how the GPA is converted to percentage. It is stated that a student who secures 100 marks out of 128 is given the GPA of 3.125 (i.e., 100x128/32=3.125) and his GP is 12.5 (i.e., 3.125x4=12.5). The minimum marks prescribed for qualifying the course is 40%. The consolidated marks secured by the 1[st] petitioner is given in Ext.R2(b). He secured grade point of 3.22; if it is converted into units of 4, 3.22 grade point would be 80.5 percent whereas on conversion by the University, it comes to only 76.6 i.e., it adopts the formula of 40+30(gp-2) i.e., 40+ 30(3.22-2) =76.6. 3. Ext.P4 grading guidelines issued by the University provides for the conversion formula for calculating percentage of marks in the case of successful candidates as follows: Conversion formula for calculating percentage of marks in the case of successful candidates: M=40 + 30 (G-2.00) **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 4 Where M: Percentage of marks G: CGPA/SGPA obtained Example: |Example:|||| |---|---|---|---| |Grade obtained|CGPA<br>obtained|Conversion formula|% of Marks| |B+|3.1O|40+30(3.10-2.00)|73.OO| |A|3.72|40+30(3.72-2.00)|91.6O| 4. The percentage of marks of a student who got B+ grade with CGPA 3.10, applying the conversion formula of 40+30(3.10-2.00) will come to 73%. In the case of the first petitioner who got the GPA of 3.22, the percentage of his marks, applying conversion formula would be 40+30(3.22-2.00) equal to 76.6%. Therefore first petitioner points out that because of the conversion he is loosing 3.9% marks, the details of marks in the case of other petitioners are also furnished. In the case of the second petitioner, the difference is 7.5 and in the case of the third petitioner it is 9.6. According to petitioners the formula prescribed in Ext.P4 is irrational and arbitrary. **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 5 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that this conversion will adversely affect the petitioners throughout their career, as they will not be able to apply for any post which requires 80% marks, despite the securing of high marks, only on account of the criteria adopted for conversion. 6. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent University that the academic council which is a statutory body has after deliberating all the points, have evolved the formula for conversion. Their main contentions in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit dated 31.10.2011 are the following: 7.xxx The petitioners have proceeded to calculate their percentage of marks without even understanding that the total subject weight of the B.B.M is 72. A true copy of the consolidated mark list of the BBM course of the 1[st] petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R2(b). It is further submitted that from the Ext.P1/1 issued to the first petitioner it can be seen that how the cumulative grade point average and grade are secured by him. In the first column of the Ext.P1/1 grade card the name of the paper is given. In the 2[nd] column the subject weightage fixed by the Board of studies for that paper is given. In the 3[rd] column grade point and grade awarded by the Examiner for external evaluation and internal evaluation is given. In the next column the grade point is converted into 4:1 ratio between the external evaluation and internal evaluation. The grade point **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 6 average secured by the candidate for that paper with the grade is arrayed at and in the last column the grade point secured by the candidate is given. For example the Financial Accounting paper of the 1[st] petitioner, the subject weight fixed by the Board of Studies is 4 which is the same for all the students of the BBM Course. In the 3[rd] column the grade awarded by the Examiner for external evaluation and internal evaluations are given. The 1[st] petitioner has been awarded 'B' Grade in the external evaluation which is equivalent to 3 and A Grade in the internal evaluation which is equivalent to 4 for Financial Accounting paper. In the 4[th] column of Ext.P1/1 WGP (weight grade point) is calculated. WGP=weight x grade WGP of external evaluation ie.,=4x3 (B) which is equal to 12 WGP of internal evaluation=1x4 (A) which is equal to 4 Total WGP=16 The 1[st] petitioner GPA (grade point average) for financial accounting GPA = sum WGP/sum weight = 16/5=3.2 The grade of the Financial Accounting Paper of the 1[st] petitioner = B(2.5 to 3.49) G.P. Grade point of the Financial Accounting paper of the 1[st] petitioner =subject weight x GPA i.e., =4x3.2=12.8 8. It is submitted that for practical purpose of ranking for admission to various courses at Post Graduate Level in other Universities which do not have the grading system, an empirical formula has been prescribed for conversion of grade into percentage. The conversion table adopted by the University as per the University order has been prepared by the expert committee consisting of the Chairpersons of the various board of Studies. The empirical formula so formulated by the expert committee has been used only for conversion of grades into percentage of marks in the case of successful candidate for getting admission to Higher studies where no grading system is followed. The formula for finding out the **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 7 percentage of marks M= 40 + 30 x (G-2) M- Percentage of marks G- Cumulative Grade Point average. As submitted earlier the Ext.R2(a) Regulation prescribed that the cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of a student is calculated at the end of a course and for successful completion of a course and award of the Degree a student must score a minimum 'D' Grade in each paper and CGPA of 2. CGPA=Sum of weighted grade points in all subjects divided by sum of weights of all subjects. Sum of weighted grade points in all subjects of the 1[st] petitioner for B.B.M Course =sum G.P of all subject of the 1[st] year + sum G.P of all subject of the 2[nd] year + sum G.P of all subjects of the final year is =13.76+12+12+12+12.8+12.8+16+11.08+13.52+12.72+11.16+12.8 0+12.68+12.44+13.04+12.8+13.04+12.92+8+6=231.56 Sum of weight of all subjects for B.B.M is 72 So the CGPA of the 1[st] petitioner of the B.B.M Course is 231.56/72=3.22 Percentage marks of the 1[st] petitioner=M=40+30x(G-2) **==> picture [99 x 23] intentionally omitted <==** 9.It is submitted that the pass minimum for B.B.M Course is 2 CGPA which is equivalent to 40% which is pass minimum required under the old system. The petitioner has also admitted that the pass minimum for B.B.M course is 40% if it is converted into percentage. So cumulative grade point average for the B.B.M Course for arriving at 40% which is the pass minimum in the old system which is being followed after introduction of the grading system is equivalent to 2. If the CGPA is equal to 2, then the corresponding calculation of the percentage of marks is as follows: M= 40+30x(G-2) **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 8 ## = 40+30x(2-2) = 40 In order to fix the percentage of the marks for pass minimum for BBM Course at 40, the cumulative grade point average should be 2. The expert committee while formulating the empirical formula for conversion of grade into percentage has taken into consideration all these aspects. It is submitted that calculation made in para 9 of the writ petition is incorrect and totally misconceived. The entire confusion has been created on account of the misconception of the petitioners that grade point obtained by them is out of 4. There is absolutely no basis for calculating the percentage based on CGPA out of 4. The petitioner has mistaken the grade point with marks and in the writ petition all throughout the petitioners are using the word marks whereas in the grading system there is no marks at all. The averment in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that formula prescribed in Ext.P4 is irrational and has no nexus with actual percentage of mark is absolutely incorrect. Formula prescribed by the university for conversion of grade into percentage is after elaborately considering the entire aspects including the pass minimum of the course and the same is perfectly correct and there is no irregularity in it. 7. The University also relies on its orders in Annexures A1 to A8 (produced along with the statement filed on 29.05.2013) issued by the University while introducing the grading system and evolving the conversion formula based on the decision of the academic bodies consisting of experts and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 9 petitioners argues that when the action of the University is arbitrary, this Court can definitely step in to render justice to the affected parties. Relying on the judgment in **Shayara Bano v. Union of India** [(2017) 9 SCC 1] especially para 67 to 70 and 100 , it was argued that the conversion formula was arbitrary and when that resulted in injustice, even if it is based on the decision of the academic bodies, this Court has got ample power and authority to invoke its jurisdiction and to undo the injustice. With specific reference to paragraphs 67 and 79 of the judgment it was argued that criteria adopted for the purpose of conversion is arbitrary and unreasonable. It was also pointed out that the criteria for conversion was changed from the next batch onwards and the petitioners' batch alone is affected by Ext.P4 conversion formula. 9. The University thereafter filed another statement producing Annexures R1(xi) to R1(xii) orders issued by it which includes the revised criteria **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 10 applicable to the students of the batches from 2009 onwards, according to which the conversion formula is: “Percentage of marks= CGPA or GPA x25”. It is stated that the new criteria is applicable only from 2009 admission onwards on introduction of choice based credit Semester system and the same cannot be applied in the case of students who underwent the BBM Course based on 2008 admission which was not under semester system. 10. The learned counsel for the University relying on the judgments in **Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Another** [2008 KHC 4950=2008 (9) SCC 284] and **Dr.Basavaiah v. Dr.H.L.Ramesh and Others** [2010 KHC 4512] argued that when experts in the academic bodies have evolved the conversion formula after due deliberations, this Court is not supposed to interfere with the same. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that if the conversion formula given in Annexures R1(xi) and (xii) is applied to the petitioners' batch **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 11 also, no loss will be caused to their marks and they had been requesting the University to adopt such a formula. According to Sri. Jawahar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a change is brought about in the conversion formula in recognition of the merit in the grievance raised by them; but the benefit of that decision is not given to them and that the students of their batch alone are subjected to a differential and discriminatory treatment. 12. On consideration of the contentions on either side it is seen that the University has altered the criteria for conversion of grade to percentage of marks for the students of 2009 admission onwards. It is also seen that a different criteria by way of Ext.P4 was followed for the students like petitioners who were admitted in 2008 only. The demand of the petitioners was that the conversion should be by multiplying the grade by 25 i.e., 100/4 or in such a way that there is no reduction in their marks or weight on conversion. On **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** **==> picture [13 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** application of the criteria in Annexures R1(xi) and (xii), there will not be any loss of marks or reduction in the percentage as was in the case when Ext.P4/R2(b) was applied. 13. The formula adopted is given in Ann.R1(xii) as percentage of marks = CGPA or GPA x 25. In case the GPA of 3.22 secured by the first petitioner was multiplied by 25 the percentage of marks would have been 80.5 as pointed out by the petitioners. If the GPA of 3.22.is converted under old formula, it would be 40+30(3.222)=76.6. Though it is true that the orders Ann.R1(xii) do not reveal the reason for changing the criteria of conversion and it is also true that the subsequent batches of the courses were under the credit semester system and that the petitioners were not under semester system, the fact remains that it is only in the case of only one batch of 2008 admission when petitioners commenced their course, that a different conversion formula which was detrimental in the results, was **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 13 adopted and applied. 14. In the judgment in **Shayara Bano'** s case (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Apex Court was considering the constitutionality of the triple talaq. In para 67 to 101 the Apex Court discussed about the development of the doctrine of arbitrariness and its application on state action based on which state action can be struck down, as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. After discussing the law laid down in a series of judgments like **E.P.Royappa v State of TN** [(1974) 4 SCC 3], **Maneka Gandhi v Union of India** [(1978) 1 SCC 248], **A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corpn** [(1984) 3 SCC 316], **Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi** [(1981) 1 SCC 722], **D.S. Nakara v. Union of India** [(1983) 1 SCC 305], **Babitha Prasad v State of Bihar** [1993 Supp (3) SCC 268] etc, the Apex Court reiterated that the arbitrariness doctrine contained in Article 14 would apply to negate legislation, subordinate legislation and **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 14 executive action. In para 70 of the judgment the following passage from the judgment in **Ajay Hasia** 's case was emphasized with approval. “16.xxxx It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is not paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article 14 would be breached. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an “authority” under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and nonarbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the Constitution.” 15. It was held that even subordinate legislation could be would be struck down if it is arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Referring to various judgment it was reiterated that the expression “arbitrarily” means: in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 15 the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on the will alone. There cannot be a dispute over the fact that the criteria adopted by the University in Ext.P4 has resulted in injustice to the petitioner. 16. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the University, it is settled law that courts shall keep itself aloof from academic matters and that when academic bodies consisting of persons having expertise in the field have taken decisions after due deliberations, interference of this Court, which does not have any expertise in such matters, is unwarranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally. 17. However in the peculiar circumstances of the case, especially when the University themselves changed the criteria for all the subsequent batches and such alteration was the one requested for by persons like petitioners, I am of the view that the very reason for **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 16 changing the criteria for conversion itself in Ext.R1(xii) is apparently for rectifying the defects and defaults underlying the then existed scheme, which they themselves found to be arbitrary. It can only be found that the modification was effected after being satisfied of the injustice caused by Ext.P4. It is true that this Court does not have any expertise for evaluating the correctness or otherwise of Ext.P4/R2(b) conversion formula and that the conversion formula was evolved by academic experts. Whether the grade is given on the basis of weight and not marks as asserted by the respondents, fact remains that conversion of the grade to percentage of marks in the case of petitioners resulted in injustice as there was a reduction in the resultant percentage arrived at on the conversion applying the formula adopted for the petitioner's batch of 2008 admission alone. It is pertinent to note that there is no such reduction if the very same grade and AGP is converted applying Annexure R1(xii). Such benefit is available to all the subsequent batches. No **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** **==> picture [13 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** such grading was available upto the admission of petitioners in 2008. Therefore there is no justification in denying the benefit of the new formula to the petitioners merely on the ground that their course was not under semester system. 18. The alteration effected to the conversion formula for the subsequent batches itself would show that the respondents have rectified the defects which were underlying Ext.P4 conversion formula. In these circumstances I am of the view that even without a declaration as to arbitrariness in adopting Ext.P4/R2(b) conversion formula, it is only fair and proper that the University to take steps to effect that modification in the case of the petitioners also. The petitioners have completed the course in 2011. They are only 3 in number. It is only appropriate that the University undo the injustice done to the petitioners by adopting the very same criteria in Ext.R1(xii) as being adopted for all the subsequent batches from 2009 admission onwards, in **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 18 the case of the petitioners also. 19. The respondent University shall therefore issue revised grade cards to the petitioners indicating the formula of conversion of Grade to percentage as given in Ann.R1(xii) as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** 19 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF MARK CARDS OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MARK CARDS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MARK CARDS OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE FORMULA AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE UNIVERSITY'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATION DATED 12.7.2011.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST YEAR QUESTION PAPER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND YEAR QUESTION PAPER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD YEAR QUESTION PAPER.** - **EXHIBIT P9 COMPARATIVE CHART PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS.** - **EXHIBIT P10 COMPARATIVE CHART PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS.** - **EXHIBIT P11 COMPARATIVE CHART PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS/ ANNEXURES:** - **EXHIBIT R1 NIL** - **EXHIBIT R2 NIL** **EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULATION FOR UNDER GRADUATE COURSES UNDER GRADING SYSTEM EFFECTIVE FROM 2008 ADMISSION.** 20 ## **WP(C).No.19620 OF 2011(B)** **EXHIBIT R2(B)** **A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED MARK LIST OF THE BBM COURSE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE REGULATION FOR UNDER GRADUATE COURSE UNDER GRADING SYSTEM FROM 2008 ADMISSION.** **ANNEXURE II ORDER NO.ACAD/C2/7101/2009(2) DATED 16.9.2010.** **ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.ACAD/C2/3828/2008 DATED 8.1.2009. ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACAD/C2/2838/2008 DATED 31.3.2009.** **ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.ACAD/C2/13376/2009 DATED 6.5.2020.** **ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATORY NO.ACAD/C2/7101/2009 (VOL.II) DATED 23.2.2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS UNIVERSITY.** **ANNEXURE VII TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATORY NO.ACAD/C2/7101/2009 (VOL.II) DATED 27.4.2011.** **ANNEXURE VIII TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.ACAD/C1/3618/2011 DATED 5.7.2011.**