Allowed

Reshma T.B. and Others v. the Principal and Chief Superintendent&

Kerala HC19 Oct 2011WP(C)/10918/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions to a university to publish withheld 7th and 8th semester examination results for six students exonerated of examination malpractices, to enable them to produce mark lists to employers.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent to publish the 7th and 8th semester results and issue mark lists to petitioners within seven days of receiving the judgment copy.

Reshma T.B. and Others Vs the Principal and Chief… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 10918 of 2011(L)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

1. RESHMA T.B, THALIYIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM.P.O, KOCHI -25.

¶9

2. RESHMA JOSE, THEKKINEDATH HOUSE, C MADHAVAN ROAD, PALLITHAZHAM, N. PARUR.

¶10

3. REMYA JACOB, MALAMPARACKAL HOUSE, EMPLOYEES GARDEN, THODUPUZHA EAST.

¶11

4. PINKY POULOSE, PALLATHU, RAMAMANGALAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

5. PHILO SUMI, PAYYAPPILLY, NORTH EDATHALA.P.O.

¶13

6. S. PAUL MATHEW, PARAKATTIL HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM.P.O,THODUPUZHA - 685 597.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.T.C.KRISHNA

¶15

SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE

¶16

RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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

¶18

1. THE PRINCIPAL AND CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, UNIVERSITY EXAMINATION IN ENGINEERING, VISWAJYOTHI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 670.

¶19

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA.P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN, SRI.K.T.THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC FOR M.G. UTY.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

tss

¶23

W.P.(C) NO.10918/2011

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶26

P1:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 23.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO 4TH PETITIONER.

¶27

P2:- COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE RPELY DTD. 14.3. 2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER

¶28

P4:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶29

P5:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶30

P6:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶31

P7:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶32

P8:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶33

P9:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶34

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL:-

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶40

....................................................... W.P.(C).10918/2011

¶41

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2011

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Petitioners are 8^th semester B.Tech students in the first respondent College. In the 7^th semester examination, there was an allegation that the petitioners were committed certain malpractices as a result of which, the result of the 7^th and 8^th semesters has been withheld by the University. In the meantime, an enquiry was held and according to the petitioners, the Vice Chancellor has accepted the report and ordered to exonerate the petitioners. Ext.P11 is the communication issued to the first petitioner in this behalf and it is submitted that similar communications have been issued to other petitioners as well. Now the prayer sought for is that in view of the exoneration as per Ext.P11 and similar other communications, the withheld result of 7^th and 8^th semester examinations should be published urgently, so that they can produce their mark list before the companies which are already recruited.

¶44

Taking note of Ext.P11 which exonerates the petitioners, I see no reason why a direction shall not be issued to the University to publish the results the petitioners.

¶45

W.P.(C).10918/11

¶46

¶47

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the second respondent will publish the result of 7^th and 8^th semester examination of the petitioners and issue mark list to them, immediately thereafter, so that, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, mark list could be produced before the respective employers, for securing employment. This the second respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within seven days of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶49

mrcs

Reshma T.B. and Others v. the Principal and Chief Superintendent&

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshma T.B. and Others v. the Principal and Chief Superintendent&

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

Ratheesh Kumar.K.R. Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Moideenkutty Hajee Vs Director General, Archaeological Survey

V.v.Joseph and Another Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

St.Mary'S Jacobite Syrian Church Vs the District Collector, Collectorate

Alex L.Abraham Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Dr.Devang Chandrakant Tank Vs State of Kerala and Others