AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.â€
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 and 54 papers out of the total 55 subjects and had secured 40% in the University examination. However, the 1st petitioner failed in two
papers for want of internal assessment marks and the 2nd petitioner failed in one paper. It is submitted that there was no provision in the 1st
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 1st 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.
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 1st petitioner has obtained 44 marks in the theory paper and 19 marks in the internal assessment while the 2nd 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.
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.
A statement has been placed on record by the respondents.
It is stated that when the petitioners joined the B.Arch course in the 1st respondent University, there was absolutely no facility for the re-do of the
internal assessment. It was on representations 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 1st 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 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.