Muhammad Arshad and others v. Mahatma Gandhi University and others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD]DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA,1944 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AGED 27 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED IRSHAD, DARUL-KARAM, ARAMANAPPADY, CHANGANASSERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM PIN-686 101 2RAMEEZ M AZEEZ, AGED 24 YEARS S/O AZEEZ M.E, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, VATTAKATTUPADY, M.C.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR P.O.PIN-683 542. 3MUHAMMED ASHIK, AGED 24 YEARS S/O M AHAMED KOYA, ORCHID, SURAFI NAGAR, 235 B, AYATHIL P.O.,PATTATHANAM, PIN-691 021. 4SURYAN G.K, AGED 25 YEARS S/O T. HOPALAKRISHNAN, MANIVEENA, MYTHRI NAGAR 35, PALLISSERICKAL P.O.SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM, PIN-690 521 5SIDHARTH T, AGED 27 YEARS S/O MOHANADASAN, MELEPALAYAKODE (H), MORAYUR P.O.,MALAPPURAM, PIN-673 642. 6HAFEEZ MUHAMMED, AGED 24 YEARS S/O E.H.M. HANEEFA, ELAMANA HOUSE, KAPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P.O., ALUVA, PIN-683 585 7MUHAMMAD NAZIM K.S, AGED 24 YEARS S/O SHAMSUDEEN K.H, FLST NO 8A, RIVERSIDE RESIDENCY, NORTH KALAMASERRY, PIN-683 104. 8HARRYZ JOE CLEETUS, AGED 25 YEARS S/O JOSEPH CLEETUS, KACKARY HOUSE, ARTHUNKAL P.O.,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 530 9AADHIITHYAN A.S, AGED 24 YEARS ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` S/O ARJUNAN S, MANNATHU VAYALIL, MUNDAKKAL EAST, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. 10DARSHAN A.D, AGED 26 YEARS S/O A.P DINEESH, ADANILATH HOUSE, VALLARPADOM, JOOTHANADAPPU, ERANKULAM , PIN-682 504. BY ADVS. T.KABIL CHANDRAN R.ANJALI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O.KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 560 2THE VICE- CHANCELLOR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 560 3THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 560 4THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016 BY ADV SHRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY ``` ``` SMT SURYA BINOY, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON23.03.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners herein are students who had pursued the B.A. LL.B (5 year) Integrated Degree Course (2015-2020) from the Government Law College, Ernakulam. By Ext.P1 order, the request made by the petitioners for redoing the internal examinations was rejected. The said order is under challenge. 2. The petitioners contend that they have completed the 5 year course in the year 2020. However, in some of the subjects, they have secured very low or nil internal marks. It is contended that each of the subjects carries 100 marks, out of which, 75 marks are awarded for external examinations and 25 marks for internal examinations. As per the regulations, every student has to secure a minimum mark of 30 for external paper and a total of 50 marks to secure a pass for an individual subject. However, there is no stipulation for any minimum marks for the internal examinations. 3. The petitioners contend that though they have put in their best efforts, they have not been able to pass the examinations due to lack of ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` marks for the internal examination. 4. The petitioners contend that in the year 2018, a group of students of the 2011 admission batch had approached this Court and by Ext.P2 judgment, this Court had issued directions to the University to consider their request to redo the internal examinations on humanitarian grounds. The same relief was granted to another group of students by Ext.P3 judgment. Later, by Ext.P4 order, the University had extended the benefit to eligible students of 2011 and 2012 batches. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: - (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to reconsider Ext.P1 order and permit the petitioners to redo the internal assessment of their respective subjects of 5 year B.A. LL.B. for the period from 2015 to 2020. 5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein it is stated that in the year 2011, Mahatma Gandhi University commenced a new course by naming it B.A.Criminology LL.B (Hons). The Bar Council of India objected to the grant of recognition for the course. ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` This led to a situation that prompted the University to rename the B.A. Criminology LL.B (Hons.) course as B.A. LL.B (5 year) Integrated Degree Course. The 2011 batch of the Criminology course was practically the last batch. There was no provision in the Regulations of the B.A. Criminology LL.B. (Hons) course to redo the internal marks, which meant that the internal marks once awarded would turn out to be final. Some of the students of the 2011 and 2012 batches, who had failed in some of the subjects due to shortage of internal marks, had approached this Court and by Exts. P2 and P3 judgments. This Court, as a one time measure, and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, directed the Principal to grant the petitioners one more opportunity to redo the internals. Such an opportunity was granted to enable the bonafide students to pass the exams as the course they had joined had ended. It is in the afore circumstances that similar benefits were granted to the students who were similarly placed. 6. Insofar as the common Regulations for B.A. LL.B (5 year) Integrated Degree course pursued by the petitioners are concerned, clause 20(5) provides that, marks once awarded in the internal examination shall be final and no application for redoing of internal assessment shall be ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` entertained on any grounds after the end of the semester. It is contended that when a course is introduced, its Regulations are framed to make the course to the best standards. If the Regulations are diluted, it would reflect on the scholastic standards of the students. It is also stated that the conduct of the internal examinations of students such as the petitioners de novo would adversely affect the functioning of the junior batches as the faculty will have to cater to the assessment of a larger number of students in a short span of time. Such an endeavour would unsettle the classes and the examination results. It is further stated that no minimum pass marks are insisted for internal examination and a student has the opportunity to pass a subject by securing the pass marks for the external examinations. Thus, even if a student secures zero marks for internal examinations, he may be able to pass the exam by securing 50 marks out of a total of 100 marks (75 external +25 internal) which is the minimum required for a pass in a subject. It is further stated that the benefits granted to students of the extinct batch cannot be granted to the petitioners. 7. Sri. Kabil Chandran T., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of Exts.P2 to P4, directions be issued to ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` the respondents to grant the petitioners one more chance to redo the internal examinations. It is submitted that when students of the 2011 and 2012 batches were given that opportunity, there is no reason why similar benefits cannot be granted to the petitioners. 8. Sri. Surin George Ipe, the learned standing counsel appearing for the University vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the reasons which persuaded this Court to permit the 2011 and 2012 batch students to redo the internal examinations were that the course was terminated by the University. This Court had mentioned that such orders have been passed as a One Time measure. The same relief cannot be granted to the petitioners as it would be incentivising students who have not had the requisite attendance, marks for classroom assignments and class test papers. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced. As per the common regulations for the Five Year Integrated Double Degree LL.B (Hons.) courses pursued by the petitioners are concerned, the Regulations have been framed in tune with the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` Education, 2008 and approved by the Board of Students meeting held on 17.9.2018. Regulation 21 deals with internal assessment. The same reads thus: ## 21. Internal Assessment The internal assessment marks shall be distributed as follows: a) Attendance : 5 marks b) Class room assignment : 10 marks (5 marks each) (Written and Oral) c) Test Paper : 10 marks d) Total : 25 marks (Maximum) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx Marks for attendance shall be granted as follows: (i) Below 75% attendance : nil (ii) 75% to 79% : 1 mark (iii) 80% to 84 % : 2 marks (iv) 83 to 89 % : 3 marks (v) 90 % to 94% : 4 marks (vi) 95 % and above : 5 marks. 2. Test Paper: At least one test paper shall be conducted by the teacher concerned. The date for the test shall be notified one ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` week in advance absentees shall not be entitled for re-test normally. Exceptional cases on medical and similar grounds may be considered by the staff council. The marks will be published in the class within 15 days of the test and students can obtain photocopies of the answer script, if required, at their expense. The answer scripts shall be retained by the teacher till 90 days after the test; unless otherwise specifically directed by the authorities, after which period, the teacher shall be free to dispose such answer scripts in whichever manner he/she deems fit. 3. Classroom Assignments: Every student shall write an assignment on each subject based on the topics assigned, and directions given by the teacher. Alternatively, the teacher has the discretion to direct students to participate in seminars/debates on the subject. Written assignment has to be submitted: 50% marks will be for content and the remaining 50% for presentation. Internal assessment marks will be published in the notice board by the teacher within 15 days after the end of each semester. The Classroom assignments submitted by the students shall be retained by the teacher till 90 days after the end of the semester, unless otherwise specifically directed by the authorities, after which period, the teacher shall be free to dispose such assignments in whichever manner he/she deems fit. Xxxxx xxxx 5. No redoing of internal assessment: Marks once awarded ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 10 ``` in the internal assessment shall be final and no application for redoing of internal assessment shall be entertained on any ground after the end of the semester. 10. I find from the details furnished in the petition that the internal marks secured by the petitioners are in single digits. Some of them have secured zero marks in subjects like Criminology II, Intellectual Property Law, Civil Society, Constitutional Law, ADR etc. It is obvious that most of them have not attempted classroom assignments, test papers conducted by the teacher and they have also failed to secure the minimum required attendance for securing internal marks. It is specifically stated in the regulations that marks once awarded in the internal assessment shall be final and no application for internal assessment shall be entertained on any ground after the end of the Semester. 11. The Bar Council of India, which is constituted under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is granted the powers to oversee the legal profession in India. Among other functions of the Bar Council of India, Section 7(i) of the Act states that the Bar Council of India is to recognize Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 11 ``` Advocate and for that purpose, is required to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State Bar Council to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with such directions as it may give in that behalf. As per Section 7(h) of the Act, one of the functions of the Bar Council is to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities of India imparting such education. The enactments require the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council to lay down standards in terms of Classroom teaching, practical training and skills, court visits, moot courts, legal aid work and other practical training programmes for law students. The University to which the colleges affiliated has its autonomy in matters which vitally affect the improvement of the legal education by limiting the size of enrolment, the nature of examination system, the policies concerning affiliation of the college, stipulation for law libraries etc. It is in terms of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008 that the Board of Studies Meeting had brought out the common regulations for the Five Year Integrated Double Degree LL.B. (Hons) course. As extracted earlier, regulation 5 specifically says that there shall be no redoing of internal assessment and marks once awarded in the ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 12 ``` internal assessment shall be final. 12. In **Pramod Kumar V. Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission** [AIR 2004 SC 4116], it has been held by the Apex Court that in the absence of rules providing for revaluation of answer books, the Constitutional Court will not be justified in issuing such directions. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in **Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda** [(2004) 13 SCC 383], wherein it was held that in the absence of clear rules, directions cannot be issued. ## 13. In **Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth** [(1984) 4 SCC 27] it was observed thus: (SCC pp. 56 & 57, para 29) “29. … the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.” ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 13 ``` 14. In the case on hand, the Rules expressly prohibit the redoing of internal assessment and in that view of the matter, I do not think that this Court will be justified in passing orders which would be in contravention to the rules. This writ petition will stand dismissed. Sd/- ## **`RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ## **`JUDGE`** NS ``` WP(C) NO. 3547 OF 2022 ``` ``` 14 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3547/2022`** ``` PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 21.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.10.2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO 23372/2018 Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO 35381/2018 Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: ``` ``` NIL ```