Shafee S & Nishant Rajeev Arunima v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Controller of Examination

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.16174 OF 2020(V)** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 SHAFEEK S AGED 26 YEARS MSN MANZIL, NARIKKAL MUKKU, PALACHIRA P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 143 2 NISHANT RAJEEV ARUNIMA, HOUSE NO.120, LANE NO.9,VINOBA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 020** **BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.JEN JAISON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,KOTTAYAM-686 560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 2 CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560, R1 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-112020, THE COURT ON 20-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.16174 OF 2020** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 20th day of November 2020** This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers :- - “(i) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to re-fix the minimum mark for re-doing the internal test as 40%, similar to that of the B.Tech course in Mahatma Gandhi University and other Universities in Kerala State and thereby permit the petitioners to re-do the internal test. - (ii) a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P5 order and Ext.P6 notification in so far as it insist for 45% marks for the theory paper as a condition precedent for doing the internal assessment examination. - (iii) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners who have secured pass mark of 40% for the University Examination to appear for their internal assessment examination (re-do of internal test) for their respective subjects and to improve their marks in the internal assessment test.” 2. Petitioners, who are B.Arch students who completed their course in the year 2017 and 2018 challenge the fixation of higher percentage of 45% marks in the written examination for applying for a Re-do of the internal assessment as provided in Ext.P6 order. It is submitted that the petitioners had cleared 53 **WP(C).No.16174 OF 2020** **3** and 54 papers out of the total 55 subjects and had secured 40% in the University examination. However, the 1[st] petitioner failed in two papers for want of internal assessment marks and the 2[nd] petitioner failed in one paper. It is submitted that there was no provision in the 1[st] respondent University for re-doing the internal assessment papers and to improve the mark in the internal assessment for B.Arch students. It is stated that the Calicut and Kerala Universities had made provisions for such internal assessment improvement for B.Arch and B.Tech students and the notifications of those Universities provided a minimum requirement of 40% marks in the University examinations for making students eligible for a Re-do. It is submitted that the criteria for an internal assessment Re-do for B.Tech students in the M.G.University is also 40% marks in the University examinations. However, in the case of B.Arch students alone, it is stated that the cut off percentage in University examination is fixed as 45 by Ext.P5 order. It is submitted that the fixation of 45% marks for B.Arch students of the 1[st] respondent University alone for making them eligible to apply for the Re-do of the internal assessment is illegal being discriminatory and is violative of the valuable rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. **WP(C).No.16174 OF 2020** **4** 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was absolutely no rational nexus for the classification as among B.Arch students and B.Tech students and also among B.Arch students in different Universities and that as such, the classification is illegal and is liable to be struck down. It is submitted that the 1[st] petitioner has obtained 44 marks in the theory paper and 19 marks in the internal assessment while the 2[nd] petitioner has secured 41% marks in the theory paper and 24 marks in the continuous assessment. It is stated that in the light of Exts.P5 & P6, they are unable to apply for the re-do of their internal assessment and that as such they are discriminated against. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a decision of this Court in **Chellappan Pillai M.N and another v. State of Kerala and others** [2017 (1) KHC 249] to contend that a classification should be founded on a reasonable basis and classification which is devoid of such rational nexus is discriminatory. 5. A statement has been placed on record by the respondents. It is stated that when the petitioners joined the B.Arch course in the 1[st] respondent University, there was absolutely no facility for the re-do of the internal assessment. It was on representations **WP(C).No.16174 OF 2020** **5** made by the B.Arch students that Ext.P4 order was passed permitting B.Arch students to re-do the internal assessment. An expert committee with eminent subject experts was appointed for studying the issue and departing recommendations regarding the internal re-do. The expert committee recommended that a student who gets very low score in continuous assessments and repeatedly scores “reasonable high marks” in theory examinations and have demonstrated improvement in the subject domain knowledge is to be given an opportunity to re-do the continuous assessment marks. It is on the basis of the recommendations of the expert committee that the eligibility criteria of 45% marks in the University theory examination was fixed to ensure that a student who opts for internal re-do has fairly good subject domain knowledge and his failure in the paper was only due to insufficient internal marks. It is stated that the fixation of the criteria for permission for an internal assessment is an academic matter which is well within the purview of the University as provided in Section 24(2) of the M.G.University Act and that there is absolutely no basis for the contention raised by the petitioners with regard to discrimination. It is stated that B.Tech and B.Arch students are completely distinct and separate classes and that there can be no contention that the same criteria applied for internal re-do for B.Tech students should **WP(C).No.16174 OF 2020** **6** be made applicable to B.Arch students also. It is further stated that the University is bound by its own internal administrative mechanism and that there is no basis for the contention raised that the petitioners are discriminated. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the University also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in **Bisveswaraya Technological University & another** v. **Krishnendu Halder & others** [2011 KHC 4210] to contend that this Court should be slow to interfere in academic matters and fixation of cut off marks and eligibility criteria are matters well within the powers of the University and that there is no illegality in the fixation of the criteria on the basis of recommendations made by an expert academic body. 7. Reply affidavit has also been placed on record by the petitioners. Ext.P9 order dated 31.7.2018 is produced to contend that the Board of Studies for the faculty of Architecture was formed only after Ext.P5 and that the decision taken by the expert committee was therefore liable to be reviewed by the Board of Studies. 8. I have considered the contentions advanced at considerable length. The case of the petitioners is that the fixing of a criteria that B.Arch students who want to attempt a re-do of **WP(C).No.16174 OF 2020** **7** their internal assessment marks should have a minimum of 45% marks in their University examinations is illegal and discriminatory. I have no hesitation to hold that the contention raised by the petitioners with regard to discrimination as against B.Arch students is completely untenable. The petitioners are B.Arch students of the 1[st] respondent University. It is admitted in the writ petition itself that there was no provision for re-do of the internal assessments when they joined the course. The re-do in respect of internal assessment marks for B.Tech was a later introduction. It is contended that the criteria for re-do of the internal assessment for B.Tech students requires only 40% marks. It is clear from Ext.P5 that the decision to allow a re-do of the internal assessment marks in B.Arch has been taken by the University considering the report of the expert committee specifically authorised for this purpose. The expert committee has opined that it is only in cases where the students have scored reasonably high marks in the University examinations and have failed only because of the shortfall of marks in the internal assessments that a re-do of the internal assessment is to be allowed. Ext.P2 mark sheets of the petitioners in the concerned subjects speak volumes about the marks obtained by the petitioners in the papers in question in the University **WP(C).No.16174 OF 2020** **8** examinations. In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that this Court would not be justified in interfering with the decision of the University with regard to fixing of criteria for eligibility for a re-do of the internal assessment. It is well within the competence of the University under Section 24(2) of the M.G.University Act to fix such eligibility criteria. The Apex Court in **Bisveswaraya Technological University's case** has specifically considered the issue and has held that it is not for this Court to decide on academic matters and where the University takes a decision within its jurisdiction, this Court should stay its hands. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the petitioners with regard to discrimination or illegality in the matter of fixation of 45% marks in the University examinations as a criteria for enabling a re-do of the internal assessment cannot be accepted. The contentions are untenable. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN** ## **JUDGE** Jvt/10.11.2020 **WP(C).No.16174 OF 2020** **9** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RULES REGULATIONS, SCHEME AND SYLLABUS OF B.ARCH DEGREE COURSE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTO COPIES OF THE RESULT SHEETS OF 1 & II SEMESTER B.ARCH.DEGREE EXAMINATION AND THE RESULT SHEET OF V SEMESTER B.ARCH.DEGREE EXAMINATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTO COPIES OF THE RESULT SHEETS OF 1 & II SEMESTER B.ARCH.DEGREE EXAMINATION FOR THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.36060/AIV/1/2018 ACADEMIC DATED 24.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.6604/AIV/ACAD/2018 DATED 07.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 07.09.2018 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER U.O.6571/AIV/AC/2017 DATED 3.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.EEIIB/B.ARCH/2019 DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA EXHIBIT P9 TRUEPHOTOCOPYOF THE ORDER NO.5850/AIV/1/2018/ACADEMIC DATED 31.07.2018 ISSUED BY THERESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.3241/1/2017/ELEN DATED 29.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY** **WP(C).No.16174 OF 2020** **10** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.10804/2017/ADMN. DATED 26.08.2017 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL**