Reshma S. Vijay vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Murali Purushothaman, J

The petitioner was a student of the five year integrated double degree LL.B. course in the Government Law College, Ernakulam, during the academic year 2017-2022. The petitioner states that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. It is stated that she has got consistently good academic records for the last 9 semesters and that she has passed all the theory papers of the 10th semester. The viva-voce examination of the 10th semester was conducted during December 2022. The petitioner submits that the viva-voce examination conducted was not transparent and that irrelevant questions were put to her and she could not secure a pass mark in the viva-voce examination and that she has been victimised and discriminated by the internal examiner. Though the petitioner had approached various authorities in the University by submitting representations, they have not yet considered those representations. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to award at least bare minimum pass marks for the viva voce examination in order to save one academic year of the petitioner considering her consistent academic record and proven credentials;

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to conduct the viva-voce examination of the petitioner afresh after giving reasonable time to the petitioner to prepare for the viva-voce.

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to frame appropriate guidelines or scheme to ensure transparency and fairness in the viva-voce examinations enabling the student to scrutinize/revalue as if in the written examinations of the university and get satisfied on the performance and no arbitrariness have meted out on them;

(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent ensure that proper record of viva-voce conducted by the Viva Board i.e. of questions asked by the examiner, answers given by examinee and the ground by which an examinee was assessed is maintained in appropriate form and video recording of entire process, as may be decided by it in all future viv-voce.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the University and the learned Government Pleader for the 5th respondent.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to conduct the viva-voce examination afresh and to award bare minimum pass mark for the viva-voce examination, on the basis of the marks secured by her in the theory papers. It is submitted that though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 02.02.2023 before the 1st respondent University, so far, the 1st respondent has not considered the same.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the Counsel on both sides, I am of the view that these are matters which should be considered by the University at the first instance. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Registrar of the 1st respondent University to consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for consideration.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.