The petitioner was a student of LLM Course during 2012 under the 1st respondent. She was not able to complete the Course due to health reasons. Ext.P2 is the Medical Certificate produced by her. She had submitted Ext.P1 representation to the 2nd respondent requesting for permission to join the IInd year of the on going batch of the LLM Course. The said request has been rejected by Ext.P4. The reason stated in Ext.P4 is that, she was a student of the Course that was being conducted on the yearly pattern. The said pattern has been abolished and the LLM Course is now being conducted according to the Semester system. Since she has not attended the IInd year of the LLM Course, the 2nd respondent has stated that it was not possible to permit her to attend the second year under the Semester system. It is also been stated that it is not possible to conduct an examination under the yearly scheme for one student alone.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Adv.Sri.T.B.Sivaprasad as per Ext.P5, a student was permitted to attend classes in similar circumstances. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for discriminating the petitioner, it is contended. According to the counsel, the petitioner was prevented from attending classes due to health reasons. To compel her to W.P.(C) No.7272 of 2014 2 rejoin the course again, afresh, would put her to a lot of difficulties.
3. Adv.Sri.Santhosh Mathew appears for the University.
According to the counsel, this is a case where the petitioner has not appeared for the 1st year LLM Examinations. She has not attended classes of the IInd year also. The course that was being conducted on the yearly pattern has come to an end. As per the new scheme, the Semester system is being followed. The petitioner who has joined the yearly course and completed the 1st year, though without writing the examinations, cannot be permitted to attend the classes of the LLM Semester Course, the scheme being totally different. Therefore it is contended that the request of the petitioner has been rightly rejected.
4. Heard. Though reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner on Ext.P5, I notice that Ext.P5 related to the Semester Examination of the regular programme of M.Ed Course. A reading of Ext.P5 makes it clear that the candidate therein was a student of the Semester course itself. However, she did not have the requisite attendance in the 1st Semester. That is not the situation in the present case. Here, the petitioner is a student of the LLM Course that was being conducted on the yearly pattern. The scheme has completely changed to the Semester system. The reason stated by the University that the petitioner cannot be permitted to complete the yearly course by attending the IInd year of the Semester course W.P.(C) No.7272 of 2014 3 LLM cannot be found fault with. It is stated that the course content has also undergone change. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings Ext.P4.
For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV