The University Of Kannur vs Ahmed Riyas K.M on 8 August, 2024

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

The University Of Kannur vs Ahmed Riyas K.M on 8 August, 2024

The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The writ petition was filed seeking to challenge Ext.P4 and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement Ext.P4 while issuing the mark cards for BBM Course and for a further direction/declaration that the formula prescribed by the University in Ext.P4 is wrong, arbitrary and irrational.

2. Succinctly stated the facts for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

Petitioners had undergone BBM Course for the first batch conducted under the affiliation of the 1st respondent University 2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 4 (appellant). All the petitioners secured Grade-B. The petitioners were selected for the course for the year 2008. While doing so, the appellant University introduced Ext.P4 guidelines for grading system. The guidelines for the grading system operated to the detriment of the petitioners and hence, they approached this Court through the writ petition.

3. Appellant-University filed statement contending that the Regulations for undergraduate courses under the grading system were introduced in the year 2008. Similarly, the guidelines for conversion of grades into marks and also the revised guidelines were, for the first time, introduced on 5.7.2011. Therefore, according to the University, the grading system has to be appropriately followed and the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition for the said purpose. A separate counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the University. The essence of the 2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 5 contention raised in the counter affidavit was that the High Court cannot sit in judgment over the decision of the experts and that the Courts should not interfere in academic matters. It was further pointed out that the arguments/allegations raised in the writ petition are built up on a wrong conception as to the direct grading system.

4. The learned Single Judge, on a detailed analysis of the rival submissions raised across the bar, formed a definite opinion that the alteration effected to the conversion formula for the subsequent batches itself would show that the respondents rectified the defects in Ext.P4 for conversion formula. It was also found that the defects so pointed out were rectified only from 2009 batch onwards, whereas the petitioners alone were left out. It was also noted by the learned Single Judge that there are only three petitioners and it would be only appropriate that a direction 2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 6 be issued to the University to undo the injustice done to the petitioners by adopting the very same criteria in Ext.R1(xii) as being adopted for all subsequent batches from 2009 onwards and allowed the writ petition.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the University has preferred the present Intra Court Appeal.

6. We have heard Sri.I.V.Pramod, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-University and Sri.Jawahar Jose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respondents/writ petition.

7. At the outset itself we are constrained to note that the writ appeal though filed in the year 2021 was admitted to file on 15.9.2021 and no interim order was granted, the University has not yet implemented the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-

2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 7 University submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are per se erroneous and cannot be sustained. He would point out that the issue as to whether what system the University has to follow for the purpose of granting marks for a course has to be left to the decision of the Academic Council of the University and the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the requirement of law as laid down by the University. It is also pointed out that the students cannot dictate terms to the University in what manner, the marking system has to be followed. Therefore, the impugned judgment is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents herein, Sri.Jawahar Jose, pointed out that the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the University is not the exact point of dispute raised 2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 8 in the writ petition. In fact all the petitioners joined the BBM Course in the year 2008. However, the University during the midway of their course introduced a fresh system of granting marks to the students as evident from the statement filed by the University pursuant to the directions issued by the Court. Our attention was drawn to Annexure-VIII produced along with the statement filed by the University. As reflected in page 126 of the paper book, the grading system and its Regulations were implemented for the undergraduate courses with effect from 2008 admissions onwards as per orders dated 8.1.2009 and 31.3.2009. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the system of grading which is available caused serious prejudice to the writ petitioners. At the time of their entry into the course, the grading system that has been introduced was not available, and therefore, they are entitled to fall back on the 2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 9 procedure prevailing at the time of their entry into the course. It was also pointed out that the University once had issued the guidelines in the nature of Ext.P4, was quite aware of the intricacies and also the defects in the present grading system. This is precisely the reason why Annexure-R1(xii) was introduced by the University on 21.3.2012. However, since the benefit of the said revision or the change in the marking system or grading system, as the case may be, was given only with effect from 2009 admissions onwards, such indiscrimination has to be necessarily interfered with by this Court and that is exactly what the learned Single Judge has done and therefore, the judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or calls for interference of this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the High Court Act.

9. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar and have perused the documents produced along with the 2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 10 paper book.

10. The University had admittedly altered the criteria for conversion of grade into percentage of marks for the students of 2009 admissions onwards. It is also seen that a different criteria by way of Ext.P4 was followed for the students like the petitioners who were admitted in 2008 only. The petitioners are justified in contending that the conversion should be by multiplying the grade by 25 (i.e. 100/4), as such there would be no reduction in the marks or weightage of conversion or in application of the criteria in Annexures-R1(xi) & (xii). The formula adopted in the given case that is evident from Annexure-R1(xii) was that the percentage marks = CGPA or GPA x 25. In the case of GPA of 3.22 secured by the 1st petitioner was multiplied by 25, the percentage of marks would have been 80.5 as pointed out by the petitioners. If GPA of 3.22 is converted under the old formula, it would be 2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 11 40+30x(3.22-2)=40+36.6=76.6. It is true that the orders so passed do not reveal the reason for changing the criteria of conversion, and the subsequent batches of the course were under the Credit Semester System, whereas the respondents/petitioners were not under the semester system, as they belonged to the 2008 batch.

11. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that when the petitioners commenced their course, a different conversion formula was available. However, during the course of their studies, i.e. midway, the University decided to alter the method of marking. This is impermissible under law as rightly held by the learned Single Judge.

12. It is now trite law that even the subordinate legislation would be struck down by the courts, if it is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The various 2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 12 judgments of the Supreme Court of India, the word "arbitrarily" has been explained to mean "unreasonable or fixed in a capricious manner or at pleasure without determining the principle". The courts cannot shut its eyes and simply hold that in academic matters, no interference is called for. Accepting the argument of the appellant-University would lead to a situation where, an arbitrary or irrational method of grading system would be adopted by the University, which would operate to the detriment of the students.

13. When we analyse the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the above perspective, it becomes evident that though the court does not have the expertise for evaluating the correctness or otherwise of the conversion formula prescribed under Ext.P4, it remains indisputed that whether the grade is given on the basis of weightage and no marks as asserted by the 2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 13 respondents remains to be seen. The abnormal situation which has arisen in the facts of this case is that conversion of grade to percentage of marks in case of the petitioners resulted in injustice as there was reduction in the resultant percentage arrived at on the conversion of the marks applying the formula adopted for the petitioners' batch for 2008 admissions alone. Perhaps realising the mistake, the University has changed its system. Once the University decided to change the system, this Court has to presume that they were perfectly aware of the deficiency of the formula. Once having convinced itself with regard to the inevitable change that has to follow, the University decided to restrict the same for 2009 batch onwards leaving 2008 batch of the petitioners alone in lurch. This Court cannot shut its eyes on this indiscriminate action of the University.

Viewed in the above perspective, we cannot find any fault on 2024:KER:61298 WA No. 1118 of 2021 14 the part of the learned Single Judge to have arrived at the decision in the impugned judgment under appeal. Hence, we find that there is no merit in the present writ appeal, and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE jg

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court