Rakshitha K. v. Kannur University and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-07-27
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rakshitha K.

Respondents

Kannur University
Controller of Examinations, Kannur University
Principal, Mahatma College, Gandhi Nagar Campus, Puthariyadukkam, Kasaragod District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. P. Peethambaran

Counsels for Respondents

• Viju Thomas, SC, Kannur University

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rakshitha K., a B.Ed (Mathematics) student admitted in 2011-12 to Mahatma College, an affiliate of Kannur University, challenges non-publication of her examination results under an interim order. The core issue is eligibility: she secured 44.83 marks in her qualifying examination, below the 45-mark threshold for OBC candidates. The college allegedly added grace marks (attributed to National Service Scheme participation) by the Principal, resulting in a total of 45.4 marks, thereby enabling admission. The University contends that Principals have no power to grant grace marks; such marks are added by the University under regulations only, and after correction, the petitioner remained ineligible for the B.Ed course. The petitioner relies on Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another (2009) 1 SCC 610 to argue that once admitted and permitted to sit for exams, the University cannot challenge eligibility. The court notes ambiguity in regulations and emphasizes Principals’ responsibility to ensure eligibility, but finds no justification to publish results after four years, especially since interim benefits conferred by Ext.P6 should not persist if the petition is infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed, with no costs, and the interim order’s benefit is not applicable to restore examination results at this late stage.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that once admissions are made to a course and the student is permitted to sit for examinations, the University cannot turn around and dispute eligibility. She relies on Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another (2009) 1 SCC 610 to argue that admissions and examination conferral create a legitimate expectation that cannot be undone by subsequent scrutiny. The petitioner asserts that the college’s Principals, by adding grace marks, acted within a practice recognized by the University’s regulations, and that any ambiguity in regulations should not prejudice the student.

Contentions of Respondents

The University contends that grace marks cannot be granted by Principals; such marks are to be added by the University through its regulations, and only after scrutiny of the mark list during registration for examinations. The 44.83 marks, even after alleged grace marks, fall short of the 45-mark threshold for OBC eligibility. The University emphasizes that the Writ Petition seeks to override established admission criteria and that the interim order Ext.P6 led to an outcome not sustainable four years later, especially given the petitioner’s awareness of disqualification and the lack of clear sanction for participation in the examination.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another	(2009) 1 SCC 610	Distinguished	The court distinguishes this decision on facts, noting that while it dealt with admissions and eligibility, the present case involves additional complexities (grace marks and late publication) and that reliance on it cannot be countenanced as controlling authority.
Abhimanyoo Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another	[2008(17) SCC 73]	Positive	Cited to support the principle that benefits conferred by interim orders should be withdrawn if the petition is infructuous, which informs the court’s decision not to publish results after a long delay.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 15880 of 2016 (H) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): ------------RAKSHITHA.K AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN K., KUTHIRAKODE HOUSE, BAKEL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------1. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., PIN-670 567. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., PIN-670 567. 3. THE PRINCIPAL MAHATMA COLLEGE, GANDHI NAGAR CAMPUS, PUTHARIYADUKKAM P.O., NILESHWAR-671 314, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **R1,R 2 BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 15880 of 2016 (H)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **P1 COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **P2 COPY OF THE GRADING SHEET OF THE PETITIONER IN THE FINAL YEAR B.SC EXAMINATION.** **P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **P4 COPY OF THE CALCULATION SHEET PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **P5 COPY OF THE COURSE AND CONDUCT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.10.2012 IN WPC NO.23651/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.9.10.2012 IN WPC NO.23651/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **P8 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.25.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **-----------------------** **// TRUE COPY //** **P.A TO JUDGE** **SB** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ## **===================== W.P.(C) No.15880 of 2016 - H ====================== Dated this the 27[th] day of July, 2016** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner's results of the examination, she appeared, by virtue of an interim order at Ext.P6, is not being published. The petitioner is a student, who was admitted to the B.Ed (Mathematics) course by the 3[rd] respondent college, which is an affiliated college of the 1[st] respondent University. The admission of the petitioner was in the academic year 2011-12, when the B.Ed course had only duration of one year and the examination was at the end of the academic year. 2. With respect to the non eligibility of the petitioner, there is no dispute since, the petitioner obtained only 44.83 marks in her qualifying graduate examination and **2** W.P.(C) No.15880 of 2016 - H the minimum eligibility criteria was 45 for OBC, to which category she belonged. However, while computing the marks, the petitioner is said to have claimed the marks available to a student, who has participated in the National Service Scheme and the Principal had added the marks to the total marks as evident from the mark list issued by the very same University and permitted her admission to the B.Ed course on the assumption that she has obtained 45.4 marks. 3. The specific contention of the University is that the Principals are not entitled to add any grace marks as available to the students, as per the regulations of the University and on an application made by the students themselves, the grace marks are added in the mark list by the University. It is after adding the grace marks entitled to the petitioner that the petitioner had secured 44.83 marks, which makes her ineligible to apply for the B.Ed course, which **3** W.P.(C) No.15880 of 2016 - H prescribes a minimum of 45 marks in the case of OBC candidates., under which category, the petitioner applied. 4. The petitioner however has a contention based on v. **Guru Nanak Dev University Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another [(2009) 1 SCC 610** , that once admissions are made to a course and the student permitted to sit for exams, the University cannot turn around and dispute the eligibility. This is so since the University scrutinises the mark list, only at the time of registration for examinations, considering the numerous admissions that are made to the various affiliated colleges. It is the duty of the Principals of the Colleges to ensure that only eligible candidates are admitted to such a course. What sets apart the facts in this particular case, from that in the reported decision is that the petitioner was confronted with her in-eligibility at the first instance of the examinations and therein there was some ambiguity in the **4** W.P.(C) No.15880 of 2016 - H regulations, which resulted in confused actions by the University too. It is also pertinent that the petitioner was aware of her disqualification insofar as she having been granted only 44.83 marks, when the minimum stipulation was 45 marks. There was no ambiguity in the regulations, which the petitioner can bank upon here. In such circumstance, the reliance placed on the aforecited decision cannot be countenanced. 5. The petitioner also has a contention that a practical examination was conducted with the Invigilators of the University, when there was no dispute regarding the eligibility raised. However, nothing is produced to substantiate a particular sanction for participation in the examination by the University; by issuance of a Hall Ticket. It is evident that, a practical, if at all held, it was a part of the curriculum of the teacher training course, in accordance with the course content **5** W.P.(C) No.15880 of 2016 - H and syllabi. 6. It has to be emphasised that the petitioner appeared for the examination, in B.Ed(Mathematics) course on the basis of an interim order produced at Ext.P6. This Court had called for the 'judges papers' of the writ petition to understand how the writ petition was concluded. It is seen that the petitioner had sought for dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous. The said practice has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Abhimanyoo Ram** v. **State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2008(17) SCC 73]** , wherein it has been specifically hold that, when, by virtue of an interim order, a benefit is conferred on a litigant and eventually the writ petition itself is dismissed as infructuous, then the benefit conferred by the interim order has also to be taken back; since otherwise it perpetrates an illegality. In such circumstance, there is no reason why the petitioner's results should be **6** W.P.(C) No.15880 of 2016 - H directed to be published, especially at this distance of time. The petitioner has waited for four years before filing the above writ petition, for declaration of the results, which delay also stands against her. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs. **Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** SB/27/07/2016 // true copy // P.A to Judge