## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/21ST PHALGUNA, 1935**
## **WP(C).No. 25024 of 2013 (C)**
**----------------------------**
**PETITIONER(S): --------------------------**
**1. ANAS N.B, NEDUNGATTUDY HOUSE, OKKAL.P.O., OKKAL,PIN-683 550.**
## **2. DEEPAK.P.T,**
**PANIKKAPPADY HOUSE, ASAMANNOOR.P.O., ODAKKALY-683 549.**
## **3. PRAVEEN.M.S,**
**MANGATTY HOUSE, EZHATTUMUGHAM.P.O., PALISSERY, KARAMATTAM-683 577.**
**BY SMT.SEEMANDINI,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.T.B.REMANI SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.P.A.RINUSA**
**RESPONDENT(S):**
**----------------------------**
**1. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KALADY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN-683 574.**
**2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN-683 574.**
**R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN B.VARGHESE,SC, SREE SANKARACHARYA UTY.**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**sts**
## **WP(C).No. 25024 of 2013 (C) ------------------------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------**
- **P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SWC/9380/SSUS/2006 DATED 22.06.2011 ALONG WITH GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
- **P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SWC/9380/SSUS/2006 DATED 19.09.2012.**
- **P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SWC/9380/SSUS/2006 DATED 21.05.2013.**
- **P4TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.SWC/6954/SSUS/2011(2) DATED 06.09.2012.**
- **P5TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.SWC/6954/SSUS/2011 DATED 17.07.2013.**
- **P6TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.SWC/6954/SSUS/2011 DATED 20.08.2013. P7TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.SWC/6954/SSUS/2011 DATED 20.08.2013.**
## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:**
## **NIL**
## **/TRUE COPY/**
## **P.A.TO.JUDGE**
**sts**
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------W.P.(C).NO. 25024 OF 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2014
## J U D G M E N T
The petitioners were graduate students of the 1[st] respondent University and the petitioners 1 and 3 were admitted to the B.A.Nyaya Course of 2007-2010 and the 2[nd] petitioner to the B.A. Music Course extending over the very same academic years. The 1[st] and 3[rd] petitioners failed to complete the course during the three year tenure and were re-admitted for the last semester for reason of shortage of attendance. Petitioners 1 and 3, hence, completed the course in April 2011. The 2[nd] petitioner completed the course in April 2010. The narrow issue projected before this Court, in the above writ petition, is the grant of grace marks as per Exhibit P1.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners had absolutely no way of knowing about Exhibit P1 and as soon
W.P.(C).NO. 25024 OF 2013 2
as it was known, the petitioners who are students with participation in sports activities, applied for the grant of grace marks. The applications are not seen to be produced herein. In any case, going by the rejection orders, Exhibits P4, P6 and P7, issued in the case of all the 3 students, their claim seems to have been made some time in the later part of 2012. The University rejected the applications of all the petitioners for the reason that they had not applied for grace marks or grades within 6 months after the end of the course.
3. The contention taken by the petitioners, that they had no knowledge of Exhibit P1, is refuted by the University, on the ground that grace marks/grades for participation in sports activities were always there in the University and students who are involved in the sports activities very well knew of such award of marks. Exhibit P1 is the revised guidelines issued for award of grace grades/grace marks, which definitely the students who are said to be actively participating in sport activities would have knowledge of.
4. The 1[st] and 3[rd] petitioners are said to have finished
W.P.(C).NO. 25024 OF 2013 3
the course in April 2011 and even after the introduction of Exhibit P1, they had three months, in which they could have made the application. With respect to the 2[nd] petitioiner, it is submitted that, the 2[nd] petitioner had completed the course way back in March 2010 and he, in any event, would not be entitled to the benefit of Exhibit P1.
5. The contention that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits as per Exhibit P1, is raised by the petitioners, on the strength of Clause 20 of Exhibit P1, which indicates that award of grace marks shall be effected from 2007 admission onwards. However, this particular clause cannot be read in isolation and the fact that such applications for grace marks/grades should be made within 6 months after the end of the course, would indicate that the said guidelines would apply only to the examinations held just prior to Exhibit P1 or subsequent to Exhibit P1. Further, it has to be noticed that the University has dealt with the case of each of the petitioners individually in their counter affidavit.
6. The petitioners, admittedly, ought to have
W.P.(C).NO. 25024 OF 2013 4
completed the course in April, 2010. However, for want of attendance, the petitioners 1 and 3 were required to re-do the 6[th] semester and hence, 6[th] semester examination was taken up by the said petitioners in April, 2011.
7. With respect to the 1[st] petitioner, the petitioner did not have the required minimum qualifying marks in Part I, English, Part II Malayalam as also in Part III subjects. When the 1[st] petitioner applied first for grace marks on 16.03.2012; apart form the delay, he could not have passed by reason of his having failed in Part I and II languages and Part III subjects. However, later in April, 2013 supplementary examination, the petitioner took part in, English and Malayalam, language examinations, and qualified in the same. He applied again, which definitely is not permissible since that application definitely was beyond the time prescribed; and since he had not challenged the first rejection.
8. With respect to the 2[nd] petitioner, the 2[nd] petitioner
had completed the course as early as on April, 2010 and the
W.P.(C).NO. 25024 OF 2013 5
grace marks were claimed on 05.10.2012, i.e., after more than two years from the completion of the course. Further the claim was for award of grace marks for the Sanskrit (Inter Disciplinary) and he had not qualified in Part II, Malayalam and Part III Music (Core Subject). Even till date he has not qualified in Part II and Part III. The 2[nd] petitioner completed the course in April, 2010 itself. The benefit of Exhibit P1 would not be extended to him, since there was a specific stipulation, in Exhibit P1, that an application ought to be made within 6 months of the completion of the course.
9. The 3[rd] petitioner’s case is same as to that of the 1[st] petitioner, in so far as repeating the 6[th] semester and appearing for the examination in 2011. But unlike the 1[st] petitioner, the 3[rd] petitioner applied for benefits under Exhibit P1 only in 2013. This definitely disentitles the 3[rd] petitioner too from Exhibit P1.
10. Hence, what is to be understood is that Exhibit P1 benefit of grace marks and grade would not be applicable for students who had finished the course before the
W.P.(C).NO. 25024 OF 2013 6 implementation of Exhibit P1. Further Clause 6 would indicate that the undergraduate student, who claims grace marks, should have minimum D grade in all subjects. Even the students who were forced to repeat the course, for want of attendance ought to have applied within the time stipulated in Exhibit P1 to apply for grace marks.
11. Honourable Supreme Court has also in circumstances were the award of grace marks were involved, deprecated the practice of students, seeking it as a matter of right, especially, since it was a concession, which results in dilution of academic standards. It has also been declared that regulations with respect to the grant of grace marks should not be generously or liberally construed.
11. It was held so in **Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. Amit and another [(2002) 6 SCC 153]** by Their Lordships in Paragraph 6:
“ _However, a rule for the award of grace marks must be construed strictly so as to ensure that the minimum standards are not allowed to be diluted_
7
W.P.(C).NO. 25024 OF 2013
_beyond the limit specifically laid down by the appropriate authority. It is only in a case where the language of the statute is absolutely clear that the claim of the award of grace marks can be sustained. Normally the court shall be slow to extend the concession of grace marks and grant a benefit where none is intended to be given by the appropriate authority.”_
In the circumstances explained above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be permitted to avail of Exhibit P1 benefit. The rejection of the University on the specific terms of Exhibit P1, for award of grace marks, hence, is found to be valid.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge
DSV/13/03
W.P.(C).NO. 25024 OF 2013 8
