Dismissed

Albin Mathew v. the Director

Kerala HC1 Apr 2011WP(C)/10439/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandamus order to permit the petitioner to participate in a diploma examination and issue a hall ticket. The Court held that the petitioner's attendance was below the condonable limit, and the Institution's acceptance of fees to condone the delay could not override the statutory 80% requirement.

What did the court decide?

Interference declined; writ petition dismissed. Petitioner granted liberty to undergo examination in prescribed cycle and claim refund of fees.

Albin Mathew Vs the Director — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 10439 of 2011(D)

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶8

ALBIN MATHEW, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW THOMAS, RESIDING AT OZHAKKAL HOUSE, THANNIKKANDAM KARA, IDUKKI VILLAGE AND P.O., VAZHATHOPPE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.P.K.SOYUZ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

MODEL POLYTECHNIC, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 603, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶15

SR GP SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶18

W.P.(C).10439/2011

¶19

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2011

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶22

prayers:-

¶23

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction and thereby command the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the 6^th semester examination of computer hardware and maintenance diploma course which is scheduled to be held on 1.4.2011 onwards and also direct to issue hall ticket to the petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, with reference to the documents produced as Exts.P1 to P3, that the only reason for not permitting the petitioner to participate in the examination is shortage of attendance which however has been sought to be condoned by remitting the requisite fees which was accepted by the Institution, (the third respondent), where the petitioner is undergoing studies as

¶25

W.P.(C).10439/2011

¶26

¶27

evident from Exts.P1 and P2. It is in the said circumstances that Ext.P3 petition has been preferred by the petitioner before the third respondent. Since the petitioner is not served with any hall ticket, he is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶28

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits on instructions that the factual position has already been got verified by the concerned authorities which reveals that the petitioner has got only 40% attendance, while the minimum stipulated for the purpose of permitting the students in the examination is 80%; simultaneously adding that if the shortage is within the limit of 55-80, the same can be condoned. Mistake is stated as committed only at the hands of the third respondent institution, who entertained the application preferred by the petitioner and accepted the fees to condone the delay which cannot be condoned as it was beyond the condonable limit.

¶29

In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the relief sought for by the petitioner is not liable to be entertained. Accordingly, interference is declined and the

¶30

W.P.(C).10439/2011

¶31

¶32

writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to undergo the 6^th semester as prescribed and can approach the concerned authority to have refund of the fees already paid in respect of the alleged cause of action.

¶33

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge

¶34

mrcs

Albin Mathew v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Albin Mathew v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya P Vs Purushothaman

Jimshad Vs State of Kerala

A.K.Joseph Vs the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State

N.Raghavan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

C.G.Thomas Vs the Executive Engineer, Pwd, Pathanamthi

M.K.Gopi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Chavakkad