whether the petitioner is under obligation to secure 40% of marks in each component of the papers. - "Calculation of 40 marks minimum per paper in LL.M examination is out of 100 marks and not minimum 40% in each component (i.e. 32 out of 80 in theory and 8 out of 20 in internal assessment separately) as LL.M. rules do not authorize such calculation. Calculation of 50% in the aggregate is to be done only at the end of the course. - the footnotes on the Marks Memos indicating that the students must secure 40% marks in each component of the subject. In the absence of a Regulation, such notes have no legal sanctity and a fortiori thing is not enforceable. - Admittedly, if the minimum marks for each component of the two subjects - Legal Education & Research Methodology and Law of Export - Import Regulations, are not insisted, the petitioner passed both the subjects as he has got aggregate of 43% and 46% respectively in the said subjects. - On the analysis as above, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as having passed LL.M Course and issue necessary certificates in respect thereof within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.


THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY          

Writ Petition No.2151 of 2011

17.10.2012

A.V.Venugopal Rao

The Registrar, Andhra university, Visakhapatnam and others

^Counsel for the Petitioner:  Sri P.Bala Krishna Murthy
                               
!Counsel for the respondents: Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar

<Gist:

>Head note:

?Cases referred:

ORDER:
The action of the respondents in not issuing LL.M Provisional Certificate to the
petitioner is questioned in this writ petition.
The petitioner who retired as Deputy Executive Engineer appeared in PGLCET-2007 
and qualified for being admitted into LL.M (Two Year) Course.  Accordingly, he
has joined LL.M (Business Law) in Dr.B.R.Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra  
University, Visakhapatnam in the year 2008 and has completed the Course.  When  
he applied for Provisional Certificate, he was denied the same by the
respondents on the ground that in two subjects, namely, Legal Education &
Research Methodology and Law of Export - Import Regulations, in II Semester, he
did not get 40% of marks in the theory components of the said two papers.
Questioning this action, he has filed this writ petition.
I have heard Sri P.Bala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel representing the
petitioner, and Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra
University appearing for the respondents.
On a careful perusal of the respective pleadings of the parties, the short
question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the
petitioner is under obligation to secure 40% of marks in each component of the
papers.
The learned Standing Counsel placed before the Court the Regulations and Syllabi
relating to LL.M Degree Course.  Regulation 12 thereof which is relevant for the
present purpose reads as under:
"12. The results of the candidates for the M.L.Degree shall be declared in two
classes - First Class and Second Class.  A candidate who obtains in the written
examination not less than 50% in the aggregate and not less than 40% in each
paper and obtains in the Essays or Thesis not less than 50% of the marks, shall
be declared to have passed in the Examination.  Such of those candidates who
obtain not less than 60% of the marks on the whole shall be declared to have
passed in the First Class and the rest in the Second Class."

A plain reading of the above re-produced Regulation reveals that in order to
pass LL.M Course, a candidate must inter alia obtain in the written examination
not less than 50% of the aggregate and not less than 40% in each paper.  The
Regulation as such does not prescribe a candidate obtaining minimum 40% marks in
each component of the paper.  The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on
letter, dated 03.03.2004, of the Assistant Registrar (Academic) addressed to
Professor H.C.M.Patro, the Chairman, Board of Studies in Law, Andhra University,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar P.G.Centre, Etcherla, Srikakulam, wherein with reference to the
issue in question, he has stated as under:
"L.L.M. Course:
"The results of the LL.M Degree shall be declared in two classes First class and
Second class.  A candidate who obtains in the written examination not less than
50% in the aggregate and not less than 40% in each paper (subject to secure 40%
in each component of the paper) shall be declared to have passed the
examination.  Such of those candidate who obtains not less than 60% marks on the
whole should be declared to have passed in first class and the rest in Second
Class."

Placing emphasis on this letter, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that
unless the Regulation existed requiring a candidate to secure 40% in each
component of the paper, there would have been no occasion for the Assistant
Registrar (Academic) to write such a letter.
The petitioner has filed a copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Board of
Studies in Law, dated 02.11.2010, wherein it is inter alia resolved as under:
"Calculation of 40 marks minimum per paper in LL.M examination is out of 100
marks and not minimum 40% in each component (i.e. 32 out of 80 in theory and 8 
out of 20 in internal assessment separately) as LL.M. rules do not authorize
such calculation.
Calculation of 50% in the aggregate is to be done only at the end of the course.
The board further resolved that these rules apply from admitted batches 2003-04
onwards until they are changed."

From the above-noted Minutes of the Board of Studies in Law, it is quite evident
that while the LL.M Regulations do not authorize calculation of 40% in each
component of the paper, the University appears to be insisting on this
requirement for a student to pass the Course.  The Board of Studies has
accordingly resolved to change this procedure from 2003-04 batch onwards.  The
Academic Senate of respondent No.1-University in its meeting held on 02.11.2010
has approved the said resolution as evident from letter, dated 27.12.2010,
addressed to the Chairman of Board of Studies in Law; the Principal,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam and other
Members of Faculty from the academic year 2010-11.  Thus, from the academic year
2010-11, the requirement of the candidates securing 40% minimum marks in each
component of the subjects is done away with.
As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents
cannot introduce a procedure which is not authorized by the Regulations made by
the competent authority.  As noted above, Regulation 12 of the Regulations which
governs the issue does not either expressly or by necessary implication
prescribe 40% minimum marks in each component of the paper.  The Board of
Studies in Law, in its resolution noted above has taken note of the fact that
the Regulations do not lay down any such requirement.  The respondents failed to
show the basis on which the Assistant Registrar (Academic) addressed his letter,
dated 03.03.2004, when the purported Regulation he has quoted is not found in
the Regulations.  The University, therefore, cannot enforce on its students a
requirement which is not prescribed by it by way of statutes or Regulations and
the same cannot stand scrutiny of the Courts.
The learned Standing Counsel relied upon the footnotes on the Marks Memos 
indicating that the students must secure 40% marks in each component of the 
subject.  In the absence of a Regulation, such notes have no legal sanctity and
a fortiori thing is not enforceable.
Admittedly, if the minimum marks for each component of the two subjects - Legal
Education & Research Methodology and Law of Export - Import Regulations, are not 
insisted, the petitioner passed both the subjects as he has got aggregate of 43%
and 46% respectively in the said subjects.  On a careful consideration of the
case in its entirety, I am of the considered view that the respondents are not
justified in treating the petitioner as not having passed the two subjects.  As
noted above, from the academic year 2010-11, the University itself has done away
with the said requirement.
On the analysis as above, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the
respondents to treat the petitioner as having passed LL.M Course and issue
necessary certificates in respect thereof within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.2667 of 2011 shall
stand disposed of as infructuous.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J    
17th October, 2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.