AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanakaraj, J.—The dispute in this writ appeal relates to the amendment of the regulations with reference to the Diploma Course in
Engineering, issued by the Director of Technical Education with effect from 2.4.1981. The respondents is the writ appeal had taken their V
Semester examinations in December, 1980. For some reason or the other they had boycotted the examination and consequently wrote the V and
VI Semester examinations in May, 1981. Even according to the appellant/Government, the amended regulation will apply only from 1981. Legally
also, the amendment dated 2.4.1981 cannot have retrospective operation. The effect of the amendment is that if the candidates do not pass the V
and VI semesters in one single attempt, they will not be entitled to the award of first class. In this case, the respondents were awarded second
class because when they wrote the examination in May, 1981 it was the second attempt for them in respect of V Semester. The learned single
Judge who heard the writ petition held that when a student seeks admission to a Course of study, he should be guided by what is contained in the
syllabus at the time when the student entered the course. He was not given to understand that he has to pass V and VI Semester in one single
attempt. In this view of the matter, the learned single judge upheld the opinion that we need not go to that extent of holding that a student is
governed by the regulations as on the date of his entry into the course. On the particular facts of this case when the respondent wrote the V
Semester examination December, 1980, admittedly the new regulations had not come into force. Therefore, they did not know that if they failed in
the V Semester or if they failed to write the examination in the V Semester, they will be denied the first class even if they make an attempt in the
next examination and obtain more than 60 per cent. To this extent, we are in agreement with the contention of the respondents, that the amended
regulations cannot be made applicable to them. Had they known that if they boycotted the examination in December, 1980, they will be denied the
award of first class, may be they would not have boycotted the examination. To this extent, the stand of the respondents is justified and we agree
that the amended regulations dated 2.4.1981 cannot be given retrospective effect to the examination conducted in December, 1980 in respect of V
Semester. In this view of the matter, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs.