Allowed

Joby John v. University of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC19 Dec 2008WP(C)/17306/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner denied VIth semester exam due to withheld Vth semester result caused by attendance shortage. University cited Standing Committee decision ratified by Syndicate. Court held Syndicate cannot delegate this statutory decision-making power to Standing Committee and quashed the communication.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 (communication dated 28.5.2007) quashed; application for condonation of attendance shortage to be considered by Syndicate.

Joby John Vs University of Kerala and Others — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 17306 of 2007(I) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------

¶8

JOBY JOHN, S/O.P.C.JOHN, AGED 20 YEARS, KAVADY PUTHENVEEDU, NEDUMBANA, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-------------------

¶12

1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF KERALA UNIVERSITY, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

4. THE PRINCIPAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION - COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, VENJARAMUDE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

5. SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY VICE CHANCELLOR.

¶17

ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1-3 & 5

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 30342 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WPC NO.17306/07

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DT 5.12.2006.

¶23

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF MEMO ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY DT 25/5/07.

¶24

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR 6TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.

¶25

EXTS.OF R1

¶26

EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EF.II/4/4264/2006-07 DT 28.5.2007 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

¶27

EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF T.C. ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, TRAVANCORE ENGINEERING COLLEGE, OYOOR DT 31.8.2006 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER ORDER ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY NO.AC D2/6404/06 DTD.1.11.2006.

¶29

//TRUE COPY//

¶30

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶31

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==============

¶32

W.P.(C) NOs. 17306 & 30342 OF 2007 ========================

¶33

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2008

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner had joined for B.Tech Course in the Travancore Engineering College, Oyoor, Kollam District. Due to ailments, petitioner could not attend classes regularly and subsequently, while the petitioner was in the Vth Semester, he applied for transfer to the 4^th respondent and joined that College.

¶36

However, for the reason that the petitioner was short of attendance, the University did not issue hall ticket for the Vth Semester Examination and at that stage, the petitioner filed Writ petition before this court as WP(C) No.32199/06. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 5^th December, 2006 with the following directions.

¶37

” Writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to issue hall ticket and permit the petitioner provisionally to write the Vth Semester Examinations subject to the decision to be taken by the Syndicate on the petitioner's application for condonation of shortage of attendance. 3^rd respondent will place the application of the petitioner before the Syndicate for their decision in their next meeting” .

¶38

It is stated that in pursuance to Ext.P1 judgment, petitioner was permitted to appear for the Vth Semester examination, but however, as a decision on the request of the petitioner for condonation of the shortage of his

¶39

WPC 17306 & 30342/07

¶40

:2 :

¶41

attendance was not taken, his result was withheld.

¶42

In the meantime, petitioner completed his VIth Semester course. When he made application for appearing in the VIth Semester examination, that was declined to be accepted, for the reason that his Vth Semester result was withheld. It is thereupon that the petitioner filed WP(C) No.17306/07. At the admission stage, this Court passed order dated 6/6/07 permitting the petitioner to provisionally write the VIth Semester Examination subject to further orders from this Court. Accordingly, petitioner appeared for the examination and this result was also withheld.

¶43

Along with the counter affidavit filed by the University, they have produced as Ext.R1(a), communication dated 28/5/2007, which reads as under.

¶44

As per the reference cited 1^st above, the Examination committee at its meeting held on 10/4/2007 considered the matter and resolved that the condonation of shortage of attendance be not granted to Sri.Joby John, B.Tech Student(S) since he has attended only 28 working days during the 5^th semester. It was also recommended that the candidate be directed to repeat the 5^th semester. As per reference cited 2^nd , the Syndicate has ratified the above decision of the Standing committee.

¶45

According to counsel for the University, based on Ext.R1(a), Vth Semester examination undertaken by the petitioner has also been cancelled. When the University produced Ext.R1(a) referred to above, producing the

¶46

:3 :

¶47

WPC 17306 & 30342/07

¶48

same as Ext.P1 and seeking to get it quashed, the petitioner has filed WP(C) No.30342/07. The contention that is raised by the counsel for the petitioner in relation to the validity of Ext.P5, which has been referred to as Ext.R1(a), in the counter affidavit filed by the University, is that the same reflects the decision of the Standing Committee of the examination and not that of the Syndicate.

¶49

On the other hand, it is contended by the counsel for the University that the Syndicate had delegated its power to the standing committee and therefore the decision taken by the Standing Committee is perfectly justified.

¶50

In the judgment in WP(C) NO.32199/06, this Court had specifically directed that the decision on the petitioner's application for condonation of shortage of his attendance should be taken by the Syndicate itself. Admittedly, the decision has not been taken by the Syndicate, but by one of its standing committees.

¶51

Section 23(xix) of the Kerala University Act confers power on the Syndicate to delegate any of its powers to the Vice Chancellor or to a Committee appointed from among its members. Though this Section provides for even total delegation of the powers of the Syndicate, this power

¶52

:4 :

¶53

WPC 17306 & 30342/07

¶54

of delegation is controlled by the provisions contained in the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977.

¶55

The statute that is relevant are those contained in Chapter 6 of the Statute and Statute 3 (Clause xxviii) provides that the Syndicate has the power to refer any matter to a Faculty, a Board of Studies, a Board of Examiners or the Academic Council, the Students' Council or any Committee or person, and to call for a report or opinion thereon. Therefore, though the Syndicate has the power to delegate any of its powers, since such power of delegation is controlled by the aforesaid provision in the University Statutes, Syndicate can only refer the matter to committee, call for its report or its opinion and decide the matter by itself. If that be the manner of exercise of power by the Syndicate, the question is whether, Ext.P5 reflects a proper exercise of power.

¶56

A reading of Ext.P5 in WP(C) No.30342/07 shows that the Examination Committee had resolved that condonation of shortage of attendance be not granted to the petitioner. Committee also recommended that the candidate be directed to repeat the Vth Semester. The communication proceeds to state that as item No.92 of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 21/4/2007, “Syndicate has ratified the above decision of

¶57

WPC 17306 & 30342/07

¶58

:5 :

¶59

the Standing Committee”. Evidently, therefore the decision that is communicated to the petitioner is the decision of the Standing committee, which was only ratified by the Syndicate. Thus obviously, the Syndicate has surrendered its power to the Standing committee which is clearly impermissible.

¶60

For that reason, I quash Ext.P5, produced in WP(C) No.30342/07 and direct that the application for condonation of shortage of attendance made by the petitioner shall be considered by the Syndicate as directed by this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.32199/06. Necessarily, therefore, depending upon the decision to be taken, the validity or otherwise of the Vth and VIth Semester Examinations undertaken by the petitioner shall be taken by the University. A decision as above shall be taken by the Syndicate, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶61

Writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶62

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶63

Joby John v. University of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joby John v. University of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Joy and Another Vs Sri.Tom Jose and Others

Jose Thomas Vs Mr. Venugopal I.A.S.

State of Kerala & Others Vs P.K.Joy & Another

Sunil.P. Vs State of Kerala

Meena George Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Bindhu Vs the Asst. Educational Officer, Irinjalak