## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938**
## **WP(C).No. 19209 of 2014 (A)**
**----------------------------**
**PETITIONER:**
- **-----------------**
**VIPIN K.K. VINAYAKAM, ARAYAMBETH (NEAR DINESH) CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR - 670 011.**
## **BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ**
**RESPONDENTS:**
- **-----------------------**
**1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, MANGATTUPARAMBA KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O. KANNUR -670 567**
**2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR - 670 567.**
**3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR - 670 567.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY SRI.VIJU THOMAS, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No. 19209 of 2014 (A)**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-**
## **-----------------------------------**
**EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS OF MBA COURSE ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, MANOMANIAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY. EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.03.2014 . EXT.P4 - COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**
## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-**
## **---------------------------------------**
|**ANNEX.I**|**-**|**COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY**|
|---|---|---|
|||**DATED 27TH JULY, 2006.**|
|**ANNEX.II**|**-**|**COPY OF THE MARK LIST DATED 12TH JUNE, 2008.**|
|**ANNEX.III**|**-**|**COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER [SEPTEMBER,**|
|||**2008].**|
|**ANNEX.IV**|**-**|**COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER [SEPTEMBER,**|
|||**2011].**|
## **//TRUE COPY//**
**P.A. TO JUDGE**
**sp**
**K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------W.P(C). No.19209 of 2014-A ---------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] day of August, 2016**
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioner is aggrieved with the denial of issuance of a Degree Certificate, for reason of a mistake committed by the University in considering the petitioner as having been passed for a subject in the year 2008. The petitioner was a student of B.Com Graduate course under the respondent University for the period 2005-2008. The petitioner completed the course and then sat for supplementary examinations and eventually applied for a Degree Certificate in the year 2012, after
_W.P.(C) No.19209 of 2014-A_
**2**
having passed the entire subjects in the course. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 Provisional Certificate dated 20/04/2012. On the basis of the Graduate Degree awarded, the petitioner applied to a University outside the State for admission to M.B.A. (Finance) and having secured such admission, completed the first year of the course, the mark list of which is produced at Ext.P2.
2. Later again, the petitioner applied for a Degree Certificate, the first one said to have been applied in the year 2012, having not been responded to. The petitioner then was issued Ext.P3 communication by the University. The University in Ext.P3 directed the petitioner to surrender the Provisional Certificate issued, since there was an erroneous computation of
_W.P.(C) No.19209 of 2014-A_
**3**
marks. The erroneous computation is explained by the University on the strength of Annexure II and Annexure III mark lists. The petitioner is said to have not obtained minimum 40% marks in the written examination in Paper X Computer Applications. As per Annexure-I University Order, there is a stipulation that besides the minimum marks prescribed for pass for all subjects; for Paper X of the B.Com main stream course, it was stipulated that there shall be a separate pass minimum of 40% marks each, for the practical examination and for the written examination.
3. The petitioner appeared in the examination of March, 2008 and obtained 16 marks each, in the written and practical examinations, as is evident from Annexure-II
_W.P.(C) No.19209 of 2014-A_
**4**
mark list. The written examination was out of a total of 50 marks and the practical out of 30 marks. As is seen from Annexure-II mark list itself, for a pass, a student has to obtain a minimum of 20 in the written examination and a minimum of 12 in the practicals. The petitioner having not secured 40% (ie., 20 marks) in the written examination, stood failed in that particular paper.
4. The petitioner again applied for the said examination, in which the marks obtained by him in that paper is seen from Annxure-III. Admittedly, the practical marks which he obtained earlier, above the minimum prescribed, would be carried over to the supplementary examination. Annexure-III indicates the petitioner having obtained only 19 marks for
_W.P.(C) No.19209 of 2014-A_
**5**
the written examination, which is one short of the minimum required.
5. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, while Annexure-II specifically indicates the prescription of minimum marks separately for written and practical exams; in Paper X at 40% for each; such a prescription is conspicuously absent in Annexure III. The petitioner was also issued with a Provisional Certificate as available at Ext.P1. This is argued to be a mistake committed by the University, by reason only of the petitioner having obtained a total of 35 marks; the minimum required in all subjects being 32, except in Paper X.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submits that the
_W.P.(C) No.19209 of 2014-A_
**6**
petitioner ought to be aware of the minimum pass marks prescribed and the petitioner should not have taken advantage of the mistake committed in issuing a Provisional Certificate. The petitioner cannot also feign ignorance of such prescription of minimum marks, since even at the first instance as evidenced from Annexure-II, the petitioner did not have the minimum required 40% for the written examination and it was hence that he repeated the examinations, in which marks were awarded as per Annexure III.
7. Admittedly, a mistake has been committed by the University. The petitioner also has arranged his affairs in such a manner that the delayed intimation of the failure in one paper seriously prejudice him. The question is
_W.P.(C) No.19209 of 2014-A_
**7**
whether the petitioner can be said to have taken advantage of the mistake committed and whether the mistake was so obvious as to have not escaped the notice of the petitioner.
8. Annexure II mark list specifically showed the minimum marks required for a pass in the written and practical examinations for Paper X Computer Applications. Annexure III did not show such prescription and the minimum marks shown was only 32 as against the marks obtained by the petitioner for the written examination of 19. Hence, totaling the said marks with the marks obtained in practicals, which admittedly would be carried over; the petitioner has obtained 35 marks, ie: more than 40% together in the written and practical examinations.
9. The University themselves had issued
_W.P.(C) No.19209 of 2014-A_
**8**
Annexure III indicating that the petitioner has passed in all the examinations. It cannot be said that the petitioner had taken advantage of the mistake committed, especially since there could have been a change in regulation, which took away the minimum prescription for written and practical examinations. Further more, the petitioner was issued with a Provisional Certificate in the year 2012 by Ext.P1, wherein also the petitioner was shown as passed in all the examinations.
10. The petitioner had passed the final year examinations only in September, 2011. Obviously, the petitioner had applied for supplementary examinations of the final year and appeared for the same to qualify for award of Degree. Annexure III indicates that the
_W.P.(C) No.19209 of 2014-A_
**9**
petitioner had failed in many of the subjects in the final year. In such circumstances, if the petitioner was informed of his failure in computer applications, definitely the petitioner would have applied for and appeared in the supplementary examinations. The pass minimum shown in Annexue III for Paper X Computer Application was only 32. From the attendant facts it cannot be reasonably deduced that the petitioner had taken advantage of a mistake committed. In all probability, the petitioner was under a bonafide impression that he had passed in the Computer Application paper with 35 marks, 19 in written examination and 16 in practical examinations, which was above the pass minimum shown in Annexure III.
11. In this context, though the delay is not
_W.P.(C) No.19209 of 2014-A_
**10**
as gross as indicated therein, a decision of this Court in **2012 KHC 2794 [Suresh S. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others]** also is applicable. As in the present case, the University having committed a mistake, turned around and sought for cancellation of the Degree awarded after 17 years. The delay though not to that extend, the petitioner's case also requires equitable consideration. Then again the petitioner, even according to the University, is only one mark short of the minimum marks required.
In the totality of the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is declared to have passed the B.Com graduate degree from the respondent University. The petitioner shall be issued the Graduate Degree Certificate by the University
_W.P.(C) No.19209 of 2014-A_
**11**
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
**K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.**
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge.
sp/10/08/16
