Allowed

Nithin Raju v. the University of Kerala

Kerala HC25 May 2012WP(C)/1375/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, a medical student challenged the university for not declaring him passed after failing only due to an arithmetical error in total marks. The court directed the university to correct the calculation, apply moderation, and issue a fresh mark list.

What did the court decide?

The university directed to re-total marks, award moderation, revise result, and issue a fresh mark list within 15 days.

Nithin Raju Vs the University of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2012/4TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1375 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

NITHIN RAJU, IST MBBS STUDENT AZEEZIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH MEEYANNOOR, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT 'RAJASHEEL' OYOOR, KOLLAM 691 510.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)

¶9

SRI.S.SHAJI SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.T.ISSAC

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

---------------- -------

¶12

1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.

¶13

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

tss

¶17

W.P.(C) NO.1375/2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST NO.EE III DATED 10.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PRO/P10/RTI/570/2011 DATED 15.12.2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3:- COPY OF MARK LIST DATED 14.6.2011 ISSUED TO A CANDIDATE BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE IST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5:- COPY OF THE MEMO NO.EE III/2011 DATED 30/11/2011 OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6:- COPY OF CHAPTER VII OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY ORDINANCE 1978 DEALING WITH CONDUCT OF EXAMINATION.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8:- COPY OF THE MEMO NO.EJ.1.2012 DATED 4.1.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶34

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.1375 OF 2012

¶35

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2012.

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner is a 1^st MBBS student in the Azeezia Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Meeyannoor in Kollam District. He appeared for the 1^st year examination in written, oral and practical held in August 2009, in two papers namely, Human Anatomy and Bio Chemistry. Since the petitioner failed in the above subjects, he appeared for all the subjects in March 2011 and again he failed. Then he appeared for the supplementary examination held in August 2011 and he failed in one subject namely, Human Anatomy. Ext.P1 is a copy of the mark list.

¶38

Going by Ext.P1 mark list, the petitioner acquired 52.5 marks for written examination, total 21 marks for internal assessment and oral, making a total of 73.5 marks for written and oral and the minimum mark prescribed for pass is 70. For the practical, there are two components namely, University marks and internal assessment. The minimum mark prescribed

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1375/2012

¶40

¶41

for the written part is 18 out of 40, and total minimum for a pass in practical is fixed 30 out of 60 taking a combined minimum for

¶42

pass as 100 out of 200. The petitioner secured 100.5 marks. But the petitioner was treated as failed in practical since he could not get the prescribed minimum mark of 18 in the written part. It is pointed out that five marks could be added by way of moderation but the said benefit was not given to the petitioner as the total marks then will be 17 only. It is in these circumstances the petitioner approached this Court seeking for various reliefs.

¶43

This Court had passed various interim orders. Finally on 20.03.2012, learned Standing Counsel for the University was directed to ascertain from the college concerned as to whether the written part of the practical examination is available with the college. Subsequently, the University called for the marks and found out that there is a mistake in adding the marks. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the mistake is rectified, the petitioner will get 13.5 marks for the practical examination and if a moderation of 5 marks is added to that, he

¶44

W.P.(C) No.1375/2012

¶45

¶46

will get 18.5 marks, i.e. above the minimum mark prescribed namely, 18. The fact that the petitioner has obtained 13.5 marks on re-checking is confirmed by the learned Standing Counsel for the University also and the communication of the Registrar of the University addressed to the learned Standing Counsel for the University was made available for perusal. The same shows that there is a mistake in not adding 1.5 marks. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed that by taking the correct marks and by adding the moderation marks, the result of the petitioner may be revised and a fresh mark list may be directed to be issued after declaration of the result.

¶47

One of the contentions raised by the learned Standing

¶48

Counsel for the University is that as far as the written part of the practical examination is concerned, there is no specific provision for re-checking and scrutiny. But, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out that clause 21 of Ext.P6 (Chapter VII of Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978), under the heading scrutiny of marks, provides that a candidate who has appeared at an examination may apply to the Controller of Examinations for

¶49

W.P.(C) No.1375/2012

¶50

¶51

scrutiny of his marks i.e., for checking whether any answers had been not given marks and whether there are mistakes in totalling.

¶52

My attention is invited to clause 3 of Ext.P6 providing for the method of examinations which shows that examinations shall be conducted by one or more of the methods namely, written, practical and oral. It is therefore submitted that the word examination will take in practical examination also and therefore there cannot be any doubt with regard to the power of the University.

¶53

In fact, I need not go into the question whether the Ordinance confer such powers, since admittedly what has resulted in the petitioner obtaining reduced marks is only a mistake committed in totalling the marks. It is well settled that nobody can be penalised for a mistake committed by an authority. The authority concerned is well within its right to correct mistakes. Herein what is involved is an arithmetical mistake. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of correction of the marks in the light of the above principle.

¶54

W.P.(C) No.1375/2012

¶55

¶56

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the University to re-total the marks of the written part of the practical examination by adding 1.5 marks, award the benefit of moderation marks to the petitioner, revise the result and issue a fresh mark list after declaring the result. The same shall be done within a period of 15 days.

¶57

This writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶58

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE

¶59

smp

Nithin Raju v. the University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithin Raju v. the University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.a.Ajith Vs Sri.K.K.Monudeen

Jamal A.M. Vs Shri.K.Ajayakumar

Pheba K.David Vs the Director of Public Instructions

Jinanbala M.S Vs P.S. Muhammed Sagir

Jiljith.C.v Vs Director

Suni Vs the District Collector, Kollam