A candidate may sit the arrears examination once; failure bars future attempts.

The petitioner sought permission to sit supplementary examinations after the university portal rejected his registration as showing an “invalid register number or password.”

He relied on a prior injury and said he had been unable to prepare for earlier examinations.

The university’s examination notification excluded candidates admitted before the 2019–2020 academic year from the supplementary examinations; the petitioner challenged the resulting restriction and sought consideration of his representation dated 12 October 2026.

The university’s counsel agreed that, following an earlier order in S. Gokul Prasanth v. The Registrar and Others, W.P. No. 42023 of 2026, dated 13 October 2026, the petitioner could be permitted to sit the arrears examination as a one-time measure.

1. Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking permission to sit the arrears examination should be considered and allowed notwithstanding the notification-based restriction.

2. Whether the university should facilitate the petitioner’s access to the online portal to register for the examination.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus.

The Court relied on the parties’ submissions and the prior order in S. Gokul Prasanth v. The Registrar and Others, W.P. No. 42023 of 2026, dated 13 October 2026; it did not set out a broader statutory rule or general principle governing eligibility for supplementary examinations.

The respondents’ counsel accepted that the petitioner could be permitted to sit the arrears examination in line with the cited prior order, subject to the relief being a one-time measure and not a precedent for other students.

In light of that submission, the Court directed consideration of the petitioner’s representation and required the Controller of Examinations to facilitate use of the online portal.

The Court did not independently determine the validity or general application of the notification’s restriction.

The permission was expressly limited to a one-time measure; if the petitioner failed to clear the examination, he would be barred from writing examinations in the future.

No costs were ordered.