Dismissed

Anusree Jayakumar K.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2021WA/655/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by two students challenging their failure in a Bharatanatyam degree course. Upholding the Single Judge's decision, the court held that the university's decision based on minimum pass marks in external examinations was legal, as no malafides or illegality were established to interfere in the academic matter.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 was failed and dismissed.

Anusree Jayakumar K.P. Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WA.No.655 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶9

WA NO. 655 OF 2021

¶10

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3430/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶11

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C) NO.3430/2021:

¶12

1 ANUSREE JAYAKUMAR K.P. AGED 22 YEARS KIZHAKKINIPURAYIL, KANKOL P.O., PAYYANNUR VIA, KANNUR-670307.

¶13

2 NIMISHA BALAKRISHNA P., OLLACHERI HOUSE, KALLURI, AROLI P.O, KANNUR-670561. BY ADVS.

¶14

E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI SRI.NARAYANAN P POTTY SRI.P.REJINARK SRI.M.K.SASEENDRAN (MELEL) SRI.P.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) NO.3430/2021:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶18

2 KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR-670002.

¶19

3 THE PRINCIPAL, LASYA COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS, PILATHARA, P.O. PILATHARA, KANNUR-670504.

¶20

SRI TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1SRI.M.SASINDRAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 SRI.B.PREMNATH FOR R3

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No.655 OF 2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2021

¶26

SHAJI P.CHALY,J .

¶27

This appeal is preferred by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3430 of 2021 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12^th March, 2021 whereby the following reliefs sought for by the petitioners were declined:

¶28

i) Declare that issuance of Exhibits A1 and A2 mark cards to the petitioners for their BA Bharatanatyam degree declaring them as not passed in Bharatanatyam practical, for want of one mark in internal assessment is against law, equity and practice and they have passed in their BA Bharatanatyam degree course;

¶29

ii) Direct the respondents concerned to do the needful to issue mark cards to the petitioners declaring them as passed in the examination Bharatanatyam 6(P) which is now shown as failed in Exhibit P1 and P2 mark cards within a very short time so as to avoid prohibition for the petitioners to go for admission to post graduate course in Bharatanatyam at Department of Dance, Sarojini Naidu School of Arts and Communication, functioning under the University of Hyderabad

¶30

iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶31

WA.No.655 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal as follows;

¶34

Appellants were students of B.A Degree Course Bharatanatyam in Lasya College of Fine Arts, represented by the Principal - 3^rd respondent. Appellants participated in the final year examination during the month of March, 2020. They were issued with Exhibits P1 and P2 mark cards by the Kannur University, Kannur - 2^nd respondent, dated 16.6.2020. It is evident from Exhibits P1 and P2 that appellants have failed in the degree course for want of requisite marks in the practicals of the end semester examination as per the regulations issued for the purpose. The case projected by the appellants is that they have failed in the exam for want of one mark in the internal assessment and that internal assessment is not a subject, having a well founded or well bounded definition or supported by any rule or guideline and therefore, according to the appellants, the examiners are at liberty to alter the assessments at their sweet will and pressure. Therefore, appellants represented before the University and requested to resolve the issue.

¶35

As a response to appellants' request, University directed the appellants to appear for the practical examination before an independent teacher, other than the teacher who conducted the internal assessment on the first occasion. However, it was contended that such direction was totally against the request made by the appellants but in order to have an early

¶36

WA.No.655 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

settlement of the issue, appellants appeared before the examiner and got 7 marks less than the pass mark required. It is the case of the appellants that in spite of the same, no mark lists were given to the appellants officially. It was also submitted that both appellants got admission for Post Graduate in Bharatanatyam at Sarojini Naidu School of Arts and Communication, Hyderabad. The intimation in respect of the same is produced as Exhibits P3 and P4 in the writ petition. Therefore the case of the appellants is that for want 1 or 7 marks in their internal examination/practical, they would lose their chance to secure admission to the Post Graduate course in Bharatanatyam. Thereafter, appellants submitted Exhibit P5 representation before the Minister for Education, Kerala on 10.2.2020, however, there was no action from the side of the Minister. The paramount contention advanced by the appellants was that the appellants failed in the Bharatanatyam practical since the appellants were not able to perform before the teachers on both the occasions i.e., 10.3.2020 and 17.12.2020, while conducting the practical examination.

¶39

The University and the Principal of the College have filed detailed a statement, and counter affidavit respectively justifying their stand. According to the college, the averment made by the appellants that they have failed in the practical for want of 1 mark in internal assessment is incorrect. In fact as revealed from Exhibits P1 and P2 mark lists, appellants have passed in internal

¶40

WA.No.655 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

assessment for the subject Bharatanatyam Practical 6(P) with “course code No.6B14BHA”. According to the college, appellants have failed in the external examination having secured just 37.5% marks out of the minimum 40% marks required for passing the external examination. In Exhibits P1 and P2 it is noted that the eligibility criteria for pass is, appearance for internal and external compulsorily, minimum 40% marks of total with separate 40% for external. Therefore, the submission of the college is that there was no error or illegality in the award of marks to the appellants. It is also pointed out that in the request made by the appellants before the college, there was no case that they have failed in the internal examination by one mark. But on the other hand they have made request to the 3^rd respondent that they did not get deserving marks in the 6^th semester practical examination(Viva) which resulted in failure and that the said matter may be reconsidered with due seriousness and do the needful enabling them to pass the examination and to take up higher studies. Exhibit R3(a) is the request. On going through Exhibit R3(a) it is clear that there was no complaint for the appellants in respect of internal assessment. In fact on the basis of the complaint filed by the appellants that the University directed to conduct re-examination and in the re-examination, the appellants have got only 7 marks, which was conducted through independent examiners, and further that the contention that the appellants

¶43

WA.No.655 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

failed for want of 7 marks is not correct. It was also submitted that the appellants have secured 15 marks out of 40 for the End Semester examination for the subject Bharatanatyam Practical 6(P) conducted for the 6^th semester course and failed to achieve 40% marks and therefore, failed in the external examination and are not entitled to pursue higher studies.

¶46

The University has also filed a detailed statement basically in line with the contention advanced by the college and also specifically stating that in the special practical examination conducted for the appellants on 17.12.2020, they could secure only 7 marks out of 40. Therefore, in accordance with the regulation governing the Undergraduate programmes, which is applicable to the appellants, the students securing 'E' Grade with 40% of aggregate mark and 40% separately for End Semester Evaluation for each course have declared to have a pass in that course.

¶47

Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the University and the Principal of the college is that appellants having failed in the End Semester Evaluation of the Bharatanatyam Practicals by not securing Minimum Pass Mark in accordance with the Regulations, appellants were not entitled to get the reliefs and therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.

¶48

We have heard learned counsel for appellants Sri.E.N.Vishnu

¶49

WA.No.655 OF 2021

¶50

¶51

Namboodiri, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Tek Chand for the State, learned Standing Counsel Sri.M.Sasindran for the University, learned counsel Sri.B.Premnath for the Principal of the College and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶52

8.The elaborate discussion of facts made above would make it clear that the contention advanced by the appellants that the appellants have failed for one mark in the internal assessment is not correct and it is only a misapprehension on the part of the appellants, which is clearly evident from Exhibits P1 and P2 mark lists produced by the appellants. It is clear from regulation 9.5 of Exhibit R3(g) regulation applicable for the course in question that a candidate securing not less than 40% of aggregate marks of a course with not less than 40% marks in End Semester Evaluation (ESE) shall alone be declared to have passed in that course. Apart from the same, a minimum of grade point 4 with letter grade E is needed for the successful completion of a course. It is vivid and clear from the records that appellants have failed to secure the minimum marks.

¶53

Therefore, it is clear that unless and until the minimum mark is secured in accordance with the Regulations for Choice Based Credits and Semester System for Undergraduate Programme, the appellants were not entitled to get pass in the instant course. There is no established contention at all for the

¶54

WA.No.655 OF 2021

¶55

¶56

appellants that the Principal of the college or Kannur University has any ill-will or grudge against the appellants so as to act malafidely against the appellants. Even though learned counsel for appellants have submitted that the Regulations – 2019 dated 27.12.2019 is illegal and unconstitutional liable to be interfered with, we find from the record of proceedings that no such challenge was made at all by the appellants in the writ petition. Above all, normally and ordinarily a writ court would be slow in interfering with academic matters, unless and until clear malafides, illegality, patent arbitrariness or perversity are established, or such aspects are decipherable from the face of the record leading to the issues raised in the writ petition. In our considered estimation the appellants have failed to establish any such aspects. It was taking into account the entire gamut of the issues, the facts and figures, and the Regulation issued by the University for the Bharatanatyam course, the learned Single Judge has arrived at the conclusions, which in our view rightly. This Court while considering a challenge against the judgment of a learned Single Judge need only analyse and arrive at a conclusion as to whether there was any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity on the part of the learned Single Judge in exercising the discretion correctly and as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶57

On going through the records available before us, we have no

¶58

WA.No.655 OF 2021

¶59

¶60

hesitation to hold that the appellants could not establish any such aspects in the appeal and therefore, they are not entitled to succeed in an intra court

¶61

appeal filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act 1958 .

¶62

Resultantly appeal fails, accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

smv

JUDGE

Anusree Jayakumar K.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anusree Jayakumar K.P. v. State 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

Central Board of Secondary Education, Vs Radhika Ramesh

The Palakkad Municipality, Vs Devadas

C.K.Varghese Vs the Secretary Cheranalloor Panchayath

Joby Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Abdullakutty Vs Fathima Suhara.M

Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Archana.T.G