Judgment:
ORDER
S.S. Subramani, J.
1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to produce before Court answer sheets of petitioner in respect of the subject Homeopathy Pharmacyin the Examinations conducted in October, 1993, April, 1994 and November, 1994 by the first respondent for verification and revalue the same and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.
2. Petitioner got admitted to Bachelor of Homeopathy Medicine Course in Second respondent-College. It is said that during 1989-90, when he was admitted there was no proper coaching; classes were not conducted and examinations were not held though large amounts were collected from students. Several representations were made by students. But action was not taken by the concerned. It is said that petitioner took active part in redressing the grievance of the students, and because of this, second respondent developed hatred towards him, from the very beginning.
3. According to petitioner, he wrote four subjects in First Year BHMS Examinations conducted by first respondent in October, 1993, and he wrote all the papers well. But he failed in one paper, namely, Homeopathy Pharmacy. He applied for review. But the Second respondent rejected his request and refused to forward the application to first respondent. Petitioner appeared for that subject in April 1994, but failed. This time also, his request for a review of the answer sheet was declined. For a third time, he appeared for that subject, namely, Homeopathy Pharmacy, in November, 1994. In that attempt also, he failed. According to petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 had struck off his answers-sheets before despatching the same for valuation to first respondent. He wanted the first respondent to entertain his review application. First respondent who is duty bound to entertain the Review Application, refused to do so, on the ground that second respondent has not forwarded the same. It is said that it is only due to the hatred of the second respondent, he failed. According to him, respondents 2 and 3 had been mischievously striking off his answers-sheets before despatching the same to first respondent, on all the three occasions. Petitioner brought the same to the notice of first respondent, and first respondent had gone through the matter and sought proper explanation from respondents 2 and 3. It is also said in the affidavit that the said illegal action ofrespondents 2 and 3 figured as a matter of discussion in the Board Meeting of first respondent-University, though no action has been taken till now. As per Rules of first respondent, a candidate can appear for supplementary examination in a subject in which he has failed only for four times, and if he fails to pass the said subject within the four chances, he will have to reappear for all the subjects together including the subjects in which he had already passed, in a supplementary examinations. Tt is further said that respondents 2 and 3, in order to wreak vengeance against the petitioner, forged his signature and preferred an application in his name to first respondent for appearing in the supplementary examination held in April, 1995 without his knowledge. Since the petitioner was not aware of the mischief done by respondents 2 and 3, he did not appear for the examination in April, 1995. It is said that the second respondent has been demanding a sum of Rs. 45,000/- for admitting the petitioner for the supplementary examination. Even though the petitioner has made various representations to first respondent, the last of which is dated 5-5-1995, no action has been taken on the same which necessitated the filing of the writ petition.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate counter-affidavits.
5. In the counter-affidavits of first respondent, it is said that the petitioners has not given any representation, to the first respondent, nor was there any discussion in the Board meeting about it. It is also said that the Rules do not require a candidate to reappear for passed subjects also in case he fail to pass the failed subjects within four chances. According to first respondent, the only restriction is that a candidate cannot be promoted to Second Year Course of BHMS unless he passed all the subjects in the First Year BHMS Course. Petitioner has failed for three times. Therefore, he is not even eligible for applying for review of answer papers is not permissible if the candidate fails more than once in a subject. It is said that application forms for examinations are sent to the institution directly and they are sent back to the University after they are filled up by the respective candidates and countersigned by the Principal. Therefore, the allegation regarding malpractice by respondents 2 and 3 is also false. It is also said that even though the first respondent-University received a representation dated 5-5-1995, no action was taken thereon since it was felt unnecessary, as the allegations made therein were routine in nature and did not contain any specific instance.
6. In the counter-affidavit of second respondent, it is said that the writ petitioner has suppressed material facts, in order to create an impression that petitioner appeared for Examinations for the first time in October, 1993. In July, 1991, petitioner appeared for four subjects out of five subjects and failed in all the four subjects, namely, Pharmacy, Anatomy. Physiology, Bio-Chemistry and Materia Medical and Organon. The said Examination was conducted at Madras Medical College, Madras. In July, 1992 also he appeared for all the five subjects and the examination was conducted at Rajas Dental College, Vadakankulam, in Tirunelveli District. In that examination, petitioner passed only one subject, namely Organon. In October, 1993, he wrote the remaining four subjects and passed three subjects except Pharmacy. In the Supplementary Examination, conducted in April, 1994, Petitioner wrote the subject Pharmacy, but he was unsuccessful. From these facts, it is clear that the petitioner took more than three chances for writing Pharmacy Examination, but he was unsuccessful. Since he has already failed on three occasions, no review is possible. The contention that the Management developed a hatred against the petitioner is denied. Review is allowed only in the case of first attempt. The al legation regarding filing a review before second respondent was also denied. According to second respondent, he never received any application for review from petitioner and, therefore, no question of forwarding the same to first respondent arises. The allegation that respondents 2 and 3 have struck of the answer-sheet of petitioner, is also denied. It is said that the petitioner was dismissed from the Scott Christian College, Nagercoil, and it was thereafter petitioner got admitted in second respondent-College. The antecedents of petitioner are also not good. Second respondent, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. After hearing learned Counsel for all parties, I feel that the petitioner's present attempt of filing the writ petition, is only to tarnish the image of 2nd respondent-Institution, without any basis.
8. Learned Counsel for second respondent brought to my notice the Guidelines for reviewing an answer-sheet. Relevant portion of the Guidelines reads thus :--
'(a) Application for review of answer paper shall not be considered in any examination if there is a provision for students to carry over any failed subject/subjects of the examination to the next year of study, without any loss of period of study. Particulars of courses in which review is permissible and not permissible are furnished below :
(b) Application for review of answer-sheet shall not be considered, if the candidate has failed in more than one written paper of the examination.
(c) The candidate applying for review of answer paper should have passed all the subject in all the previous University Examinations, if he/she had appeared any, in first attempt/attempts.
(d) The candidate should have attended all the examinations conducted by the College authorities and the University examinations regularly during the course of his/her study this fact should be furnished by the head of the department/ professor of the subject in the pro forma to be enclosed with the application form.
(e) The request for review must be sent in the prescribed form with the remarks, of the Head of Department/Professor in the prescribed pro forma and forwarded through the Head of the Institution.'
9. The definite case of second respondent is that no application was made by petitioner for reviewing the answer-sheets and that the petiioner as also not eligible for making such a request. Absolutely no material was placed before this Court to show that such a review application was moved before second respondent. In the affidavit, the petitioner has not given the details of the Review, Application and the date on which it was filed. Even in the representation given to the first respondent in May, 1995, no details are given. As rightly contended by learned counsel for second respondent, a reading of the writ petition will create an impression that the petitioner had appeared for the examination for the First Year BHMS Course only in October, 1993 for the first time. That statement is not true.
From July, 1991 onwards, petitioner has been writing Examinations, and in all Examinations he has failed. He has not disclosed the details of his performance in the Examinations that were held in 1991 and 1992. Why I am stressing this print is that for filing a review application, one of the conditions is that the petitioner should have passed all the subjects in all the previous/University Examinations in the first attempt itself. In the case of petitioner, since he is not eligible, he thought of suppressing this fact in the writ petition.
10. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the Authorities of the Institute were inimical towards him, since he was leading various representations against second respondent-College. I do not find any substance in the said contention, for, even according to petitioner, all the students staged several agitations, and petitioner also took part in the same. There was no necessity for discriminating the petitioner alone, when other students were not proceeded against. In fact, no details have been given. Moreover, the allegation of the petitioner regarding harassment has been specifically denied by second respondent in the counter-affidavit. The further allegation in the writ petition that respondents 2 and 3 have struck off the answer-sheets and they have not for warded the Review Application was the subject matter of the board meeting of first respondent, is also a false case. First respondent, who is competent to speak about the same, has definitely said that these allegations never came for any discussion since it was not brought to the knowledge of any one, including respondents 2 and 3, and there was no board meeting in which this matter couk have been discussed. According to me, this is only a false story put forward by the petitioner The allegation regarding requirement of a candidate for reappearing in passed subjects also in case of failure with in four chances, is also deniec by first respondent. The only restriction is that candidate cannot be promoted to Second Year Course of BHMS unless he passed all the subjects in the First Year BHMS Course.
11. From a reading of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner had made some allegations against the respondents in order to create a sympathy in his favour. Those allegations are absolutely without any basis. There is not even an iota of truth in the case of the petitioner.
12. It could be further seen from the counter-affidavit of the first respondent that the answer-sheets will be made available for review only for three months after publication of the results. The writ petition has been filed long after October, 1993, April, 1994 and November, 1994 i.e., it has been filed only on 11-8-1995, after knowing that the answer-sheets will not be available petitioner has sought for the relief in the writ petition without any bona fides. I find force in the contention of the respondents that frivolous allegations have been made against them with the mala fide intention of creating a bad impression about the institution in the eyes of the public. The antecedents of the petitioner which are stated in the counter-affidavit of second respondent also support the contention of the respondents.
13. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and consequently the same is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) each set to respondents I and 2, to be paid by petitioner separately. Connected W.M.P. is also dismissed.