The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had been a student of Three Year LL.B course commenced in 1983-84. The petitioner completed the course in 1986; but appeared only for Part III of final year examination, in which he obtained 3rd Class. The University abolished the 3rd Class from 1993-94 admission onwards. In effect, if the petitioner had appeared regularly at the time when he was admitted, he would have obtained a degree in law, if he had obtained 40% marks. But, however, because of the abolition of the 3rd Class, a student has to obtain 50% marks to be qualified in law. There was considerable change in the scheme of the syllabi also, which changes came in 1998 and again in 2000 and 2008. 2. The petitioner appeared in January and February, 2007 for certain examinations which he had failed earlier and passed in certain Parts of such examinations. Subsequently, in January 2010, he appeared for all other papers; but did not secure WP(C).No.8469 of 2012 - 2 -
50% in the said papers. The petitioner was, hence, before the University seeking that the standards applicable at the time of his admission and continuance in the course has to be applied for considering his pass percentage in the supplementary examinations also.
3. This Court is not very convinced about the grounds raised by the petitioner. Exhibit P9 rejected the request of the petitioner for relaxing the minimum marks. According to this Court, there is nothing wrong in that. However, Exhibit P10 is an order of the Joint Registrar dated 09.04.2014. The very same issue with respect to abolition of 3rd Class in Three Year LL.B course was up for consideration before the Academic Council again, in the year 2014, after the petitioner's case was rejected in the year 2011. When considering the case of another person, by name Sri.A.K.Ramakrishnan, who also had been a student in the admission prior to 1993-94, the Academic Council at its meeting held on 20.03.2014 resolved to make applicable the regulation of LL.B. (3 Year course) old scheme to Sri.A.K.Ramakrishnan. Hence, Sri.A.K.Ramakrishnan, who was also a student admitted prior to 1993-94 and having not cleared all the examinations, had appeared in the year 2012; was qualified on getting 40%.
WP(C).No.8469 of 2012 - 3 -
4. The petitioner also stands on a similar footing. There is abject discrimination. Nothing is put forward to show that the petitioner's case stands on a different footing. On that ground, Exhibit P9 would be set aside and the Academic Council's decision with respect to the petitioner, which is vide item No.4 at the meeting held on 03.12.2011 would also stand set aside. The Academic Council shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of Exhibit P10 and allow the prayer of the petitioner and qualify the petitioner, if the petitioner has the minimum percentage of marks as stipulated prior to 1993-94.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the old scheme the petitioner was entitled to moderation also. Moderation is an issue which has to be considered on the basis of the particular examinations; at that point of time and cannot apply to future examinations.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Vku/-
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
( true copy )