A JAYARAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE constitutional validity of regulation 18 of the regulations governing the courses of study and scheme of examination of two year pre-university course is what has been called in question in the present writ petition. The regulation reads thus:

(2.) A plain reading of the above would show that the same entitles a candidate who has passed the ii year examination in all the subjects to reject the result in a given subject or subjects, provided that such option can be exercised by the candidate only twice within three subsequent examination from the date of the ii puc examination held in the first instance.

(3.) THE petitioner's grievance is that the restrictions placed by the regulation upon the number of attempts or in other words the number of rejections he can opt for is legally bad. The argument is that since a candidate who has failed in the examination can go on reappearing any number of times till he passes, the regulation in so far as it restricts the number of attempts that a candidate who has rejected his result is bad and discriminatory. I however find no substance in the challenge mounted by the petitioner. The right to reject the result in a subject or subjects is conferred by regulation 18 alone. No such right inheres in the candidate concerned. That being so, the right can be claimed only in the manner and to the extent permitted by the regulation. If the university has in its wisdom considered two rejections to be enough for allowing a candidate to improve his result by rejecting the earlier result, no fault can be found with the same particularly when in matters relating to academic excellence and standards the university and its academic bodies enjoy considerable latitude. In university of Mysore and others v I. Gopala Gowda, the question that arose for consideration was whether the university could provide for weeding out of candidates who had failed to pass the course within the prescribed period or in the prescribed number of attempts. Upholding the power conferred by the regulation upon the university the court observed thus: