Disposed

Reshma S. Vijay v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Kerala HC14 Mar 2023WP(C)/8752/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the viva-voce result of a law student alleging discrimination and lack of transparency, the Kerala High Court declined to grant immediate relief. The Court directed the university Registrar to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Registrar of the 1st respondent University to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2023 and pass appropriate orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of a c

Reshma S. Vijay Vs Mahatma Gandhi University — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8752 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RESHMA S. VIJAY, AGED 24 YEARS
D/O VIJAY, VYSHAKH (H), PERUMANNU, KEECHERY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680507

¶8

BY ADVS.
BIJU K.C.
LEENA JOSEPH
ANSA ELDHOSE
dr. sajan vazhappilly

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686560

¶12

2 VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686560

¶13

3 CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 685560

¶14

4 STUDENT GRIEVANCE CELL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 685560

¶15

5 PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011

¶16

6 MS. DAYANA M.K. LECTURER, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011

¶17

BY ADV SHRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 8752 OF 2023 ..2..

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner was a student of the five year integrated

¶22

double degree LL.B. course in the Government Law College, Ernakulam, during the academic year 2017-2022. The petitioner states that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. It is stated that she has got consistently good academic records for the last 9 semesters and that she has passed all the theory papers of the 10^th semester. The vivavoce examination of the 10^th semester was conducted during December 2022. The petitioner submits that the viva-voce examination conducted was not transparent and that irrelevant questions were put to her and she could not secure a pass mark in the viva-voce examination and that she has been victimised and discriminated by the internal examiner. Though the petitioner had approached various authorities in the University by submitting representations,

¶23

WP(C) NO. 8752 OF 2023 ..3..

¶24

they have not yet considered those representations.

¶25

Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:

¶26

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to award at least bare minimum pass marks for the viva voce examination in order to save one academic year of the petitioner considering her consistent academic record and proven credentials;

¶27

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to conduct the viva-voce examination of the petitioner afresh after giving reasonable time to the petitioner to prepare for the viva-voce.

¶28

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1^st respondent to frame appropriate guidelines or scheme to ensure transparency and fairness in the viva-voce examinations enabling the student to scrutinize/revalue as if in the written examinations of the university and get satisfied on the performance and no arbitrariness have meted out on them;

¶29

WP(C) NO. 8752 OF 2023 ..4..

¶30

(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1^st respondent ensure that proper record of viva-voce conducted by the Viva Board i.e. of questions asked by the examiner, answers given by examinee and the ground by which an examinee was assessed is maintained in appropriate form and video recording of entire process, as may be decided by it in all future vivvoce.

¶31

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the University and the learned Government Pleader for the 5^th respondent.

¶32

The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to conduct the viva-voce examination afresh and to award bare minimum pass mark for the viva-voce examination, on the basis of the marks secured by her in the theory papers. It is submitted that though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 02.02.2023 before the 1^st respondent University, so far, the 1^st respondent has

¶33

not considered the same.

¶34

WP(C) NO. 8752 OF 2023 ..5..

¶35

In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the Counsel on both sides, I am of the view that these are matters which should be considered by the University at the first instance. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Registrar of the 1^st respondent University to consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1^st respondent for consideration.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶37

Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶38

¶39

WP(C) NO. 8752 OF 2023 ..6..

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8752/2023

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE VIII SEMESTER
EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE IX SEMESTER
EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON REGULATION FOR THE
FIVE YEAR INTEGRATED DOUBLE DEGREE LL.B.
COURSES ISSUED BY THE M.G. UNIVERSITY
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE 10TH SEMESTER
EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
02.02.2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF
1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE
PETITIONER

Reshma S. Vijay v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshma S. Vijay v. Mahatma Gandhi University

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

Benny.P.M, (Secretary), Vs State of Kerala

S.P.Krishna Moorthy Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

The Secretary Akathethara Grama Panchayath, Vs Shri Siromani D

Jayan a K Vs the Principal Secretary

P.S. Sreekumar, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sukumaran K.C. Vs Reliance General Insurance Company