Rathish M.V vs Mahatma Gandhi University And Ors

Petitioner had joined for Law in the year 2005. He discontinued in 2007, but rejoined in 2009 and completed the course in 2012. By then, he could

clear only 10 subjects. However, in the year 2017, petitioner wrote 41 papers and cleared all of them. Now he is left with nine more subjects to

complete his LLB course.

It is submitted by Adv.Gikku Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's inability to complete the course at one stretch or attempt

to clear the examinations was due to his penury and the hardships faced by him. It was submitted that in the internal examinations of six subjects he

has obtained very low marks. The learned counsel for petitioner beseeched this Court to show an indulgence to the petitioner to redo his internal

examinations so that he stands a chance to clear the LLB course.

In the internal examinations for certain subjects, petitioner could not score any marks. It is submitted that since the internal examination marks are

extremely poor, it is practically impossible for the petitioner to obtain even pass marks for his remaining subjects as the valuation for subjects in LLB

are quite tough. Accordingly, he seeks for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to redo the internal examination of Paper Nos.26 and

29 of the 5th Semester as well as Paper Nos.55, 56, 57 and 58 of the 10th Semester of the Five Year LLB course under the first respondent.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University Sri.Ashok M Cherian submits that the petitioner is not entitled as of right to obtain any

direction for redoing the internal examination since the petitioner had not applied for such redoing of the internal examination within the time of one

year stipulated under the 'Regulations'. It is also pointed by the learned Standing Counsel that the time stipulation of one year was brought in after a

detailed discussion at the academic level and the same cannot be interfered with.

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA.No.1544/2020, wherein, this

Court directed the Vice Chancellor of the first respondent University to consider the application of the student therein. In coming to such a conclusion,

this Court had referred to the directions issued in WA.No.648/2018.

I have considered the contentions raised across the Bar. It is true that the petitioner is attempting to redo the internal examinations and had applied

for the same beyond the time limit stipulated in the 'Regulations'. Though the Standing Counsel for the University pointed out that it is a regulation that

stipulates the time limit, it is seen from the judgment referred to in WA.No.1544/2020 that this Court had declared in the judgment in WA.No.648/2018

that the stipulation of one year is not a regulation but only an order of the academic council of the University and can be varied by the Vice

Chancellor, according to the circumstances of each individual case.

Taking note of the fact that petitioner had cleared 51 theory subjects out of a total of 60 subjects within a short time, reflecting his interest and

aptitude for law, this Court feels that an indulgence could be shown to the petitioner to enable him to attempt to complete the LLB course by redoing

the internal examination. This is all the more so, since the present will be the last 'mercy chance' available to the petitioner to complete the course in

the syllabus he studied. The syllabus for persons like the petitioner are slated to change after the next examinations.

However, since the Vice Chancellor is vested with the powers to pass orders, it is only appropriate that the Vice Chancellor takes a decision in the

instant case regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to redo the internal examination taking note of the observations made by this Court as above

including the last mercy chance available to the petitioner, the penury of the petitioner, the clearing of 41 subjects at one stretch and even the proposed

change of syllabus.

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the last date for paying the fee for written examinations is 07.01.2021 without fine and

with fine it is 11.01.2021. He also pointed out that the proposed date for written examination is 22.01.2021 and if a decision is not taken before the

dates fixed for the written examination, petitioner will suffer great hardships, in the event of an order in his favour.

Taking note of the circumstances and also reckoning the position of the petitioner as mentioned earlier, I deem it fit to direct the 2nd respondent to

take a decision on the application of the petitioner for redoing the internal examination of Paper Nos.26 and 29 of the 5th Semester LLB as well as

Paper Nos.55, 56, 57 and 58 of the 10th Semester of the Five Year LLB course within a period of two weeks from today, at any rate, not later than

20.01.2021 bearing in mind the observations in paragraph 7 and 8 above. For enabling the 2nd respondent to abide by the above direction, Ext.P5 shall

stand set aside.

The original petition is allowed as above.