Petitioner, an LL.M. student who completed the course with a CGPA of 5.39, challenged the rejection of his degree application on the ground that specific regulations superseded general ones requiring a 5.5 CGPA. Court held general regulations retained the higher CGPA mandate and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/22ND JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 10140 of 2014 (N)
PETITIONER :
ARUN K. ANTONY, AGED 33 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O.ANTONY, KOLENCHERY HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683 574.
BY ADVS.DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM SRI.T.K.SAJEEV
RESPONDENTS :
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 560.
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 560.
3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY SYNDICATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 560.
BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, S.C, M.G.UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 10140 of 2014 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
Msd.
WP(C).No. 10140 of 2014 (N)
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING 09/07/2003 AND DATED 9TH DECEMBER, 2003 OF THE ACADEMIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CREDIT & SEMESTER SYSTEM). EXHIBIT R1(B) : TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.AC.AI/2/523/2002 DATED 30.01.2004. EXHIBIT R1(C) : TRUE COPY OF SEMESTER OF GRADES (IMPROVEMENT) DATED 13.11.2008 OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PROGRAMME LL.M. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CYBER LAW. EXHIBIT R1(D) : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.06.2014 FROM THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF INDIAN LEGAL THOUGHT TO THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MG UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. //TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
Msd.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner a practising lawyer has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-
Course conducted by the Mahatma Gandhi University, School of Indian Legal Thought, Kottayam. He was a
-:2:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
student of the Course during 2006-07 and 2007-08. The prospectus for the said course is Exhibit P1. For the course, Credit and Semester System ('CSS' for short) was followed. The Regulations by which the said system was applied from the year 2002-03 is produced as Exhibit P2. The students were permitted to opt for elective subjects. However, they had to study the subjects designated as Core subjects also. It is stipulated by the Regulations that each student would have to obtain a total of 72 credits spread over both the core subjects and elective subjects. It is also stipulated in Exhibit P2 that, the minimum grade point necessary to be obtained by a candidate called the Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) is 5.5. The petitioner completed his LL.M. course in the year 2008. However, he had not applied for or obtained his Degree Certificate. Since he was in need of his Degree Certificate for being considered for appointment as the Public Prosecutor of the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), he sought for the issue of a Provisional
-:3:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
Certificate as well as his Degree Certificate. By Exhibits P12 and P13, the applications submitted by him have been rejected stating that, he had not obtained the minimum required Cumulative Grade Point Average of 5.5. The petitioner attacks the said reason for the rejection of his application in Exhibits P12 and P13.
-:4:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
P3, which does not stipulate any minimum Cumulative Grade Point Average. Since the specific regulations do not contain the stipulation regarding minimum Cumulative Grade Point Average, it is contended that the said stipulation has been impliedly given the go by, while bringing Exhibit P3 into force. With reference to Exhibit P3, it is also pointed out that, in the clause that elaborates the grading system, an additional grade 'F' indicating failed has been introduced, which appears below the grade B― , for which the grade point of 4 has been indicated. In view of the above, it is contended that a candidate would fail only if his grade falls below B ― (B negative). The counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the decisions of this Court in State of Rajastan v. Gopi Kishan Sen [1993 KHC 618] and P. Raja Sandhi v. Union of India [2010 KHC 4705] to contend that, a specific rule would exclude a general rule. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate orders as prayed for in the writ petition.
-:5:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The crux of the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents is that, a minimum Cumulative Grade Point Average of 5.5 is stipulated by the Regulations for LL.M. course. Exhibit P8, the statement of grades issued to the petitioner on 27.10.2008, shows only a Cumulative Grade Point Average of petitioner as 5.39. Therefore, he cannot be declared to have passed his LL.M. Examination. With respect to Exhibits P2 and P3, it is contended that, the Regulations as originally framed had been amended by Exhibit R1(b) incorporating the minimum Grade Point Average of 5.5 into the Regulations. Therefore, unless the said minimum is obtained by a candidate, he cannot claim to have passed the examination. Senior Counsel Sri.P.Jacob Varghese who appears for the respondents contends that Exhibit P2 Regulations are general in nature being applicable not merely to the LL.M. course but also to various other
-:6:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
courses. Exhibit P3 regulations applies specifically to the LLM Course and governs the manner in which the said course is to be conducted. However, such specific regulations issued in respect of different courses cannot and does not have the effect of superseding Exhibit P3 regulations. Though the insistence of a minimum average grade point was absent in Exhibit P2 Regulations, as originally framed pursuant to Exhibit R1(a) decision, the same has been incorporated into it by an amendment later, which is Exhibit R1(b). For the above reasons, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this petition.
-:7:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
as his Degree Certificate. The said applications have been rejected by Exhibits P12 and P13 on the ground that he had failed to acquire the minimum Cumulative Grade Point Average of 5.5. The contention of the petitioner is that, no such minimum is required to be obtained by a candidate for the reason that as per Exhibit P3 Regulations what is required is only to obtain 72 credits spread over both the core subjects and elective subjects. The petitioner having obtained 72 credits spread over his core subjects as well as electives, he is entitled to be issued with his LL.M. Degree.
-:8:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
Semester system. Therefore, the Regulations Exhibit P2 have been made applicable to the various courses mentioned therein, including the LL.M. from 2002-03 onwards. Exhibit P2 contains the details of the manner in which the Credit and Semester Systems is to be implemented. The different expressions like 'semester, credit, grade, programme etc have been defined and elaborated.
The Grade Card given to the student at the end of each semester will indicate the grades he/she has obtained as well as the Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) which is the weighted average of the numerical value (grade point) obtained by him/her in the semester. Weighted average is calculated by dividing the sum of the product of the grade point or numerical value obtained for each course and the credits that it carries by the total number of credits earned. The Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) for the whole programme will be calculated in the
-:9:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
same way, which will also be indicated in the Grade Card. The Minimum graduating CGPA for all programmes shall be 4 except for M.Ed, LL.M. and M.Phil. , for which the minimum graduating CGPA shall be 5.5. (Emphasize supplied )
The above passage shows that, the minimum graduating CGPA for all programmes except for M.Ed., LL.M. and M.Phil courses has been fixed at 4, whereas in the case of B.Ed, LL.M. and M.Phil. the same has been stipulated as 5.5. The above provision further shows that, the courses mentioned therein have been treated separately for the purpose of providing higher minimum Cumulative Grade Point Average. It is in the above background that the impact of Exhibit P3 on the clause should be examined.
-:10:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
detail in Exhibit P3. I have been taken through the relevant clauses of the said Regulations. It is true that, the grading system that is provided in paragraph 10 of Exhibit P3 has incorporated an additional grade designated by 'F' which indicates fail. The said paragraph further explains how the Cumulative Performance Index is to be calculated, which reads as follows:-
The Grade Card given to the student at the end of each semester will indicate the grades he/she has obtained as well as the Semester Performance Index (SPI), which is the weighted average of the numerical value (grade point) obtained by him/her in the semester. Weighted average is calculated by dividing the sum of the products of the grade point or numerical value obtained for each course and the credit that it carries by the total number of credits earned. The Cumulative Performance Index (CPI) for the whole programme will be calculated in the same way, which will also be indicated in the Grade Card. The rank will be decided on the basis of the CPI.
A perusal of the above shows that what is contemplated by
the above passage is the Cumulative Performance Index (CPI) and not Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) that
-:11:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
is stipulated by Exhibit P2. Therefore, the fact that no minimum is prescribed by the above clause for the Cumulative Grade Point Average cannot justify a conclusion that the said minimum was given the go by in Exhibit P3. Both the above concepts are different and therefore, cannot be equated to each other.
-:12:-.
W.P.(C) No.10140 of 2014-N
not required to be provided again in Exhibit P3. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to the LL.M. Degree without insisting on the minimum Grade Point Average is rejected.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
kkj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the specific regulations applying to the LL.M. course (Exhibit P3) superseded the general credit regulations (Exhibit P2) regarding the minimum Cumulative Grade Point Average requirement.
Whether the petitioner, having completed the course with 72 credits but a CGPA of 5.39, is entitled to the LL.M. degree certificate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajastan v. Gopi Kishan SenReferred¶55
State of Rajastan v. Gopi Kishan Sen [1993 KHC 618]
P. Raja Sandhi v. Union of IndiaReferred¶55
P. Raja Sandhi v. Union of India [2010 KHC 4705]
Arun K. Antony
Mahatma Gandhi University
K.Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
