The petitioner's contention is with respect to the moderation marks he should have been ordinarily granted in the supplementary examination of September-October, 2005 in one subject, in which he had failed in the regular examination. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent University submits that the issue is no longer alive, since the petitioner has appeared in a supplementary examination and qualified in the B.Tech degree and has been issued with certificate as of 2012. However, on the insistence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner the matter was heard.
3. The petitioner was admitted to the B.Tech course commencing in the year 1998. He would have ordinarily qualified in the final year in 2003. However, the petitioner failed in two out of the eight subjects. The petitioner then appeared for one of the subjects in which he failed in the supplementary examination of September -October, 2005.
4. The petitioner failed to qualify, since he obtained only 73 marks, 42 in the written examination and 31 in practical examination and minimum required for a pass was 75 marks. Subsequent to that, by Ext.P2, the University brought in a system of moderation by which a student was granted moderation up to 10 marks for qualifying in the whole semesters. It was clarified in the order itself that no moderation will be granted to enable the student to pass in one or more subjects and the moderation would be applicable only if it enables the student to qualify in the entire semester. Later on by Ext.P3, the Syndicate decided that the benefit can be extended to even passing one or more subjects for supplementary and transitory candidates. Ext.P4 however restricted it to the transitory students of 1993 and 1998 alone.
5. The University contends that primarily the petitioner is not a transitory student, since, any student who appeared for the examination with a change in syllabus would only come within that definition. The petitioner however contends that a supplementary candidate, was given the benefit under Ext.P3, but later withdrawn by Ext.P4. The petitioner also relies on the endorsement made in Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is only a hall ticket and there is no reason why the University should endorse moderation in the hall ticket. The moderation if at all granted has to be disclosed from the mark list and not from the hall ticket.
6. It is also specifically noticed that, there was no moderation scheme as on the year in which the petitioner appeared for the supplementary examination. The petitioner appeared for the examination in September-October, 2005. The petitioner claims retrospective moderation on the strength of Exts.P2 and P3 dated 15.09.2007 and 09.10.2009 retrospectively. The scheme by which moderation was granted can only apply prospectively and there can be no retrospective moderation, enabling students who had sat for examination prior to coming into force of moderation to claim benefit under such moderation scheme.
Hence the writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A To Judge.