What Went Wrong?
Today, 28 fourth‑semester B.A. English Literature students at Salem Sowdeswari College discovered they were excluded from the ‘English for Business’ exam because the university and college failed to record the paper and collect the required fee. The incident highlights systemic lapses in exam administration across Periyar University’s affiliated colleges, echoing a similar mishap at government arts colleges in Dharmapuri and Namakkal last year. Students and faculty are now pressing the university to schedule a make‑up exam, while the oversight cost each student ₹100 in unpaid fees and jeopardized their semester progression.
- •Periyar University Exam Omission: 28 Students Missed Paper, Governance Gaps Exposed
Periyar University Exam Omission: 28 Students Missed Paper, Governance Gaps Exposed
Twenty‑eight students of Salem Sowdeswari College discovered in June that they had not appeared for the “English for Business” paper of their B.A. English Literature programme. The omission stemmed from a failure to allocate the paper in the college’s workload and to collect the ₹100 exam fee, while hall tickets were still issued, prompting a complaint to the Chief Minister’s Office and demands for a special re‑exam.
The fourth‑semester examinations for B.A. English Literature were scheduled across all colleges affiliated to Periyar University in May 2026. Students from the government‑aided Salem Sowdeswari College were instructed to register for seven papers, unaware that an eighth – “English for Business” – was part of the curriculum.
- ▸28 students missed the paper because the college did not list it in the semester workload.
- ▸The exam fee of ₹100 for the missing paper was never paid, yet hall tickets were printed for all seven registered papers.
- ▸The students learned of the omission only in early June from peers at self‑financing institutions.
- ▸A formal complaint was lodged on 25 June 2026 to the Chief Minister’s Office.
- ▸The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education (RJD) issued a seeking‑explanation letter on 30 June 2026.
The Controller of Examinations (CoE) at Periyar University failed to cross‑verify fee payments and paper allocations, allowing the error to persist until after the examinations. The college’s administration, instead of offering an immediate remedial exam, suggested that the missed paper be taken as an arrear in the fifth semester, effectively penalising the students for an administrative lapse.
Legal and Constitutional Framework
India’s Constitution enshrines the right to education as part of the broader guarantee of personal liberty. Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to education. Moreover, the Directive Principles of State Policy, notably Article 45, obligate the State to provide free and compulsory education to children.
Statutory mechanisms exist to enforce transparency and accountability in public institutions. The Right to Information Act 2005 empowers students and parents to request records of fee payments and exam schedules, compelling universities to maintain searchable databases. The University Grants Commission Act 1956 mandates the UGC to oversee standards of higher education, including the conduct of examinations. Under the National Education Policy 2020, universities are required to adopt digital platforms for exam management, ensuring real‑time verification of student enrolment and fee clearance.
Judicial precedents reinforce procedural fairness in academic administration. The Inamdar judgment 2005 affirmed institutional autonomy but also stressed that autonomy must be exercised within the bounds of law and fairness. Similarly, the Ashoka Kumar case 2004 highlighted the need for transparent processes in educational decisions, a principle that extends to exam administration.
Accountability and Redress Mechanisms
The immediate redress route taken by the aggrieved students involved filing a complaint with the state’s chief ministerial office, followed by an inquiry from the RJD. The Association of University Teachers (AUT) has demanded that the university’s CoE convenor order a special re‑examination for the affected cohort, citing a precedent where a similar lapse in Dharmapuri and Namakkal colleges was remedied through a dedicated exam session.
- ▸The AUT’s general secretary, K. Raja, noted that a special exam was conducted for a comparable incident in the previous year.
- ▸The college principal issued memos to the English department staff to expedite syllabus completion for the missed paper.
- ▸The CoE‑in‑charge, K. Murugesan, pledged to allow the paper to be taken in the fifth semester as an additional, not arrear, paper.
Beyond administrative complaints, students can invoke the RTI Act to obtain audit trails of fee collections and exam roll generation. In cases of systemic failure, a Public Interest Litigation can compel the university to adhere to statutory timelines and ensure that no student is disadvantaged by procedural lapses. The economic cost of such failures includes delayed graduation, loss of employment opportunities, and the administrative expense of organising ad‑hoc examinations.
Did You Know? The University Grants Commission’s 2021 audit revealed that over 12 % of affiliated colleges nationwide had discrepancies in exam fee reconciliation, underscoring a systemic issue beyond a single university.
Way Forward: Strengthening Exam Governance
A robust digital backbone
Tags
Concepts Mentioned
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Public Interest Litigation is a legal proceeding for a public cause. It has significant social impact, promoting justice and accountability. The Indian Supreme Court introduced PIL in the 1980s.
Ashoka Kumar case 2004
Ashoka Kumar v. Union of India (2004) is a Supreme Court judgment that upheld the 93rd Amendment’s reservation for Other Backward Classes in higher education while imposing a creamy‑layer exclusion for the relatively affluent among them. The ruling also set a 50 % ceiling on total reservations, a benchmark that continues to govern affirmative‑action policies across India.
Inamdar judgment 2005
The Inamdar judgment (2005) is a Supreme Court ruling that clarified the right to privacy under Article 21, holding that it can be restricted for public interest. It set a precedent for later privacy jurisprudence, influencing the 2017 Puttaswamy decision; the case arose from a journalist’s challenge to a police surveillance order.
National Education Policy 2020
The National Education Policy 2020 is a comprehensive framework for India's education system, aiming to promote equity, accessibility, and quality education. It emphasizes the importance of vocational education, skill development, and digital literacy. For instance, the policy proposes to increase the share of vocational education to 50% of total education by 2030.
University Grants Commission Act 1956
The University Grants Commission Act 1956 created the UGC as an autonomous statutory body to coordinate and maintain higher‑education standards in India. It authorises the UGC to allocate central funds to universities and approve new institutions, promoting uniformity. For instance, the UGC’s NAAC accreditation of more than 1,000 colleges derives from this act.
Right to Information Act, 2005
The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a law granting citizens access to government information. It promotes transparency and accountability, enabling citizens to request and obtain information from public authorities. The Act applies to all government bodies.
Article 45
Article 45 of the Indian Constitution originally directed the State to provide free and compulsory education for all children up to age fourteen, establishing the groundwork for the later Right to Education. Its inclusion marked a pioneering commitment to universal schooling in a newly independent nation. The provision was transformed into a fundamental right by the 86th Amendment in 2002.
Article 21
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, making it a fundamental right of every citizen. This provision is significant as it protects individuals from arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture, and ensures that the state cannot deprive anyone of their life or freedom without due process. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to include the right to a clean environment and access to healthcare.
Log in to like, comment, and join the discussion.