High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2011-09-19Petition disposed of; relief granted to petitio...

Ashwini Alva P. v. University of Calicut and Controller of Examinations

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 31080/2010 (H)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ANTONY DOMINIC
Judgment Date: 2011-09-19
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of: The petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of the examination undertaken under the old syllabus, and the University is directed to award the B.Sc (Maths) degree and issue the degree certificate within six weeks of production of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of; relief granted to petitioners by directing degree award and issuance of degree certificate.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ashwini Alva P.

Respondents

University of Calicut represented by its Registrar, Calicut University; Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Jawahar Jose
• Sri Cissy Jawahar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Santosh Mathew, SC, Calicut University

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks to mandamus the University of Calicut to confer the B.Sc (Mathematics) degree upon the petitioner and issue the degree certificate. Ashwini Alva P., a distance-education student admitted in 2003-04, appeared for the 1st year examination in 2004 and was shown 16 marks out of 80 in Mathematical Economics (Paper-1). She did not register for the 2nd year in 2005 but appeared for the 2nd year in 2006 and 3rd year in 2007; the consolidated mark lists show pass in all subjects, yet the degree was not awarded. The Respondents contend that a syllabus change in 2004-05 required the 1st year paper on Mathematical Economics to be reattempted under the new scheme; marks from the old syllabus were carried to the 2nd year, but the petitioner was directed to take the 1st year under the new syllabus. The petitioner asserts she was permitted to write under the old syllabus, and there was no explicit directive to switch to the new syllabus. The Court, relying on the University’s own permissive stance and citing Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, holds that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of having appeared under the old syllabus and directs the University to grant the degree within six weeks of the judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Right to Information Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Equitable principle: where an authority has conferred a benefit, it cannot deny relief on retroactive grounds; beneficiaries should be allowed to rely on prior permissive actions (supported by Krishan v. Kurukshetra University).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends she underwent examinations under the old syllabus with the University’s permission; she had passed all years but the degree was not awarded due to the change in syllabus and the manner of evaluating the Mathematics Economics subject. She argues that denying the degree after years of appearance under the old scheme would be inequitable and contrary to the benefit conferred by earlier permission. She relies on the principle espoused by the Apex Court in Krishan v. Kurukshetra University to grant relief. The relief sought is an award of the B.Sc (Maths) degree and issue of the degree certificate.

Contentions of Respondents

The University argues that the 2004 admission batch was governed by a revised syllabus; candidates must take the first-year paper under the new scheme. Marks from the old syllabus were carried over to the second year, and the petitioner was required to also take the first year under the new syllabus. Since the petitioner did not follow the new syllabus for the 1st year, the degree could not be awarded under the new scheme. The respondents contend that policy changes necessitated reappearance under the new syllabus.”

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra	(1976) 1 SCC 311	Positive	The court relies on this decision to affirm that where the University or its officials previously permitted examination under an older scheme, relief cannot be denied and the benefit should be conferred.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ashwini Alva P. v. University of Calicut and Controller of Examinations and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC** **MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933** **WP(C).No. 31080 of 2010(H)** **-----------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **ASHWINI ALVA.P., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.GANGADHARA ALVA.P., `PITHRU KRIPA HOUSE' PERADALA P.O., BADIADKA, KASARGODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SRI.CISSY JAWAHAR.** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 635.** **2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 635.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUT UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.31080/2010 H** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **P1; COPY OF THE 1ST YEAR MARK CARD TOGETHER WITH ITS REVERSE SIDE NOTES.** **P2: COPY OF THE 2ND YEAR MARK CARD TOGETHER WITH ITS REVERSE SIDE NOTES.** **P3: COPY OF THE IMPROVEMENT MARK CARD WITH ITS REVERSE SIDE NOTES.** **P4: COPY OF THE 3RD YEAR MARK CARD TOGETHER WITH ITS REVERSE SIDE NOTES.** **P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 5/08/2010 RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** **P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29/09/2009 WITH POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.** **P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 21/09/2010 WITH POSTAL REGISTRATION SLIP.** **P8: COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER BEARING NUMBER C 16140-A.** **P9: COPY OF THE MEMO.** **P10: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, J** .......................................... W.P.(C).31080/2010 .......................................... Dated this the 19[th] day of September, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The main prayer sought in the writ petition is to declare that the petitioner has secured pass marks in every subjects for B.Sc (Maths). Consequential direction is also sought for, requiring the respondents to award B.Sc (Maths) Degree and to issue Degree certificate to the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner registered herself as a student for B.Sc (Maths) under the Distance Education Scheme for the academic year 2003-04. She appeared for the 1[st] year Examination held in April, 2004 and Ext.P1 is the mark list which inter alia show that for the subject 'Mathematical Economics - Paper-1', she was awarded 16 marks out of 80. 2[nd] year examination was held in April, 2005. However, for her own reasons, petitioner did not appear for the examination. On the other hand, she appeared for the 2 W.P.(C).31080/10 2[nd] year examination held in April, 2006 and Ext.P2 is the consolidated mark list which includes the marks awarded to the petitioner for the 1[st] and 2[nd] years. She appeared for the 3[rd] year examination held in April, 2007 and Ext.P4 is the mark list, which again shows that she passed in all subjects. Despite all this, she was not declared passed and degree certificate was not issued. It was therefore, the writ petition is filed with the prayers mentioned above. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the relevant averments are contained in paragraph 5 and 6 which are extracted below for reference. “It is submitted that the petitioner was a candidate admitted to B.Sc Mathematics degree with Statics and Mathematical Economics as subsidiary subjects under Distance Education mode during the academic year 2003-04 and appeared for all subjects of 1[st] year B.Sc degree examination including II subsidiary Paper I Mathematical Economics in April, 2004 with register No.83975 as per the W.P.(C).31080/10 3 scheme and syllabus applicable for 2003 admission students. But the petitioner did not register her name for the II year examination in 2005 and applied for the same only in the year 2006. In the meanwhile, the scheme and syllabi of the subsidiary subject, Mathematical Economics was revised with effect from 2004 admission onwards. It is submitted that as per rule, candidates who are to appear for any University examination for the first time have to take the examination as per the scheme and syllabus in force at that time. Accordingly the marks of all subjects scored by the petitioner in her first year examination in 2004, except the marks secured in the subsidiary Paper I Mathematical Economics was carried over to the second year. In the case of Mathematical Economics the petitioner was directed to take the first year examination also under new scheme and syllabus along with the II year examination, 2006, which is mandatory since the syllabus has underwent a change.” 5. Thus, the reason for the stand taken by the University appears to be that during 2004-05, when the petitioner was W.P.(C).31080/10 4 undergoing 2[nd] year degree course, there was a change of syllabus and the petitioner ought to have appeared for the 1[st] year subject Mathematical Economics paper-1 under the new syllabus. It is stated that she did not do so and it was therefore that the degree could not be awarded. 6. Refuting the contentions in the counter affidavit, a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, where in paragraph 4, she has reiterated that the examinations undertaken by the petitioner, not only in the 1[st] year, but also in 2[nd] and 3[rd] years, were under the old syllabus, despite the change of syllabus with effect from the academic year 2004-05. Paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit reads thus:- “It is submitted that there was no general or specific direction, either to the petitioner in person or to all the candidates in general that the candidates who wrote the 1[st] year examination in the year 2004 and who wrote the 2[nd] year examination in the year 2006, has to re-appear for the examination again in the new syllabus. The petitioner was permitted to W.P.(C).31080/10 5 write the 1[st] year, the 2[nd] year and the 3[rd] year examinations in the old syllabus. The new syllabus was introduced by the University from the academic year 2004 and the 1[st] batch of the new syllabus wrote the 1[st] year examination during March/April 2005. The petitioner who joined the course in the year 2003, appeared for the 1[st] year examination during March/April 2004, the 2[nd] year examination during March/April 2006 and the 3[rd] year examination during March/April 2007. While the petitioner wrote the 2[nd] year and the 3[rd] year examination, there were two types of question papers i,e old syllabus question paper and new syllabus question paper. The old syllabus question papers will have a heading as “2003 and earlier admissions” and the new syllabus question papers will have a heading as “2004 admissions”. The question paper issued to the petitioner for the 2[nd] year examination, for the subject Mathematical Economics is produced and marked as Ext.P8, Ext.P8 will evidence that the maximum marks for the subject Mathematical Economics for the 2[nd] year is 120 marks.” W.P.(C).31080/10 6 7. During the course of the arguments, the University has not seriously disputed the correctness of the assertion made by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit. However, according to the University, though the petitioner ought to have appeared in the examination for the subject Mathematical Economics Paper-1 under the new syllabus, by an inadvertent mistake, she was permitted to appear under the old syllabus. In my view, University itself having permitted the petitioner to appear for the paper in question under the old syllabus, it is not now open to the University to contend that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the examination undertaken by her. This view has been taken by the Apex Court in its judgment in **Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (1976 (1) SCC 311)** . 8. Now that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of examination appeared by her and as she has secured 16 marks which is the minimum required for passing the subject, she is entitled to get the relief sought for in the writ petition. Therefore, there will be a direction to the University to award W.P.(C).31080/10 7 B.Sc (Maths) degree to the petitioner and to issue degree certificate evidencing the award of the degree. This shall be done by the University as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC **, Judge** mrcs