Disposed

Alex L.Abraham v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Kerala HC19 Oct 2011WP(C)/12627/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that students were prevented from attending classes prior to interim court orders and such absence should not be their detriment. It directed the University to consider applications for condonation of attendance and publish results expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directing the University to consider applications for condonation of attendance and pass consequential orders regarding the publication of withheld results.

Alex L.Abraham Vs Mahatma Gandhi University — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 12627 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

1. ALEX L.ABRAHAM, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.LEGI ABRAHAM, 8TH SEMESTER (MECHANICAL), SAINTGITS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTTUKULAM HILLS, PATHAMUTTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 532.

¶9

2. HEMANTH S., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SANTHAKUMARAN NAIR (LATE), 6TH SEMESTER (MECHANICAL), SAINTGITS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTTUKULAM HILLS, PATHAMUTTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 532.

¶10

3. KOSHY M.SAM, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SAM M.KOSHY, 6TH SEMESTER (MECHANICAL), SAINTGITS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTTUKULAM HILLS, PATHAMUTTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 532.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.T.DINESH, SRI.C.N.SAMEER.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.

¶15

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.

¶16

3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.

¶17

4. THE PRINCIPAL, SAINTGITS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTTUKULAM HILLS, PATHAMUTTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 532.

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY. R4 BY MR.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SRNIOR ADVOCATE.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 12627 of 2011(C)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/07/2010 IN WP(C) NO. 21549/2010.

¶25

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EK.III/C/3/PR-46/1333/S-1341/VC'S/1154/CE'S/10 DATED 03/09/2010 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 18/09/2010 GIVEN TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 18/09/2010 GIVEN TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P3(b): COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 18/09/2010 GIVEN TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 04/10/2010 IN WP(C) NO. 30445/2010.

¶30

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 08/11/2010 IN WP(C) NO. 30445/2010.

¶31

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/01/2011 IN WP(C) NO. 30445/2010.

¶32

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 01/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EK.III/C/3/PR/46/133/S-1341-VC'S/1154/CE DATED 09/02/2011 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXT.P9(a): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXT.P10: COPY OF THE FINAL ATTENDANCE STATUS OF THE PETITIONERS AS ON 14/10/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.

¶37

EXT.P11: COPY OF THE FINAL ATTENDANCE STATUS OF THE PETITIONERS AS ON 19/04/2011 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHICH IS SIGNED BY HIM ON 08/05/2011.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

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

¶43

W.P.(C) NO. 12627 OF 2011

¶44

=====================

¶45

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2011

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

Petitioners were Mechanical Engineering Students in the college of which the 4^th respondent is the Principal.

¶48

While the first petitioner was in the 6^th semester, he

¶49

was suspended for 15 days w.e.f. 3/2/10. Similarly when the 2^nd petitioner was in the 4^th semester he was suspended for 15 days w.e.f. 2/2/2010 and the third petitioner also a 4^th semester student was suspended for a period of 10 days from 20/3/2010. On expiry of the period of suspension, they were allowed to resume studies and they completed the semesters.

¶50

On the ground of shortage of attendance, they were prevented from appearing in the semester examinations. This led to the filing of WP(C) No. 21549/10 before this Court, in which interim orders were passed enabling the petitioners to continue to attend the classes in the 7^th and 5^th semesters respectively. Writ petition was finally disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment directing that the Vice Chancellor will consider the request of the petitioners for condonation of shortage of attendance in the 6^th and 4^th

¶51

WPC No. 12627/11

¶52

:2 :

¶53

semesters with the sympathy it deserves.

¶54

However, the Vice Chancellor rejected the applications made by the petitioners as per Ext.P2 order and consequently, 4^th respondent issued Ext.P3 memos cancelling registration of the petitioners in the 7^th and 5^th semesters. This again led to the filing of WP(C) No. 30445/10 in which Ext.P4 interim order was passed by this Court, as a result of which, the petitioners were permitted to prosecute their studies in the 7^th and 5^th semesters. This was followed by Ext.P5 order directing that the petitioners be allowed to appear in the semester examinations. The writ petition was finally disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, directing reconsideration of the request of the petitioners for condonation of their shortage of attendance in the 6^th and 4^th semesters, which was earlier rejected by Ext.P2 order of the Vice Chancellor.

¶55

Accordingly, by Ext.P7, petitioners forwarded Ext.P6 judgment and requested the University to condone their shortage of attendance in 6^th and 4^th semesters and also to publish their results in the 7^th and 5^th semesters respectively. Finally, the University issued Ext.P8 order dated 9/2/11 condoning the shortage of the petitioners' attendance in the 6^th and 4^th

WPC No. 12627/11

:3 :

semesters.

During this period, though the petitioners were continuing their studies, in so far as the first petitioner is concerned, though the 7^th semester commenced on 23/6/2010, he could get readmitted following the interim order in WP(C) No.21549/10 only w.e.f. 20/7/2010. Similar is the case of the petitioners 2 and 3 with reference to the 5^th semester. Again, though the 8^th semester course commenced on 19/1/11, based on Ext.P8 order of the University, the 1^st petitioner could attend the classes only w.e.f. 17/2/11. Similarly, petitioners 2 and 3, who were then in 6^th semester classes of which that started on 12/1/11 could attend the classes only w.e.f. 17/2/11.

¶60

Subsequently, the petitioners submitted Ext.P9 series of representations to publish their results of 6^th and 4^th semesters and to regularize their attendance in the 7^th and 5^th semesters respectively. At that stage, 8^th semester and 6^th semester exam were to commence on 5^th of May and 10^th of May and apprehending that on the ground of shortage of attendance, they will not be permitted to appear in the examinations, this writ petition was filed. Interim order was passed by this Court on 26^th

¶61

WPC No. 12627/11

¶62

:4 :

¶63

of April, 2011 on the basis of which though they appeared in the examination, their results are still withheld.

¶64

Thus, the resultant position now available is that the

¶65

shortage of attendance of the petitioners in the 6^th and 4^th semesters has been condoned and regularized, but the results are withheld. Similarly, in so far as the first petitioner is concerned, attendance shortage in 7^th and 8^th semesters is yet to be regularized and the results are also withheld. In so far as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, the shortage of attendance in the 5^th and 6^th semesters remains to be regularized and the results are also withheld.

¶66

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as far as the 7^th and 8^th semesters of the first petitioner and the 5^th and 6^th semesters of the second and third petitioners are concerned, they could attend the classes and appear for the examinations prior to Ext.P8 only on the strength of interim orders passed by this Court and subsequently, on the strength of Ext.P8. It is stated that therefore virtually the petitioners were prevented from attending in the classes, and therefore, their shortage of attendance should not be reckoned to

¶67

WPC No. 12627/11

¶68

:5 :

¶69

their detriment. It is therefore contended that their shortage of attendance should be regularized and their withheld results should be published.

¶70

I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned senior counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶71

While the 4^th respondent almost endorses the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, standing counsel for the University submits that under the Regulations of the University, shortage of attendance is to be condoned or regularized by the University and that for the said purpose, application in the prescribed form should be made by the student to the Principal along with the prescribed fee and that the Principal should forward the application with his recommendations to the University. It is stated that only if that procedure is complied with, can the University consider the request of the petitioners and pass orders in the matter.

¶72

While one can have no quarrel with the point canvassed by the learned counsel for the University, still question remains to be considered is about the manner in which the

¶73

WPC No. 12627/11

¶74

:6 :

¶75

absence of first petitioner in the 7^th semester prior to 20/7/2010 and in the 8^th semester prior to 17/2/11 has to be dealt with. Similarly, the manner in which the absence of petitioners 2 and 3 in the 5^th semester prior to 20/7/10 and the 6^th semester prior to 17/2/11 also will have to be considered.

¶76

As already seen, the petitioners could attend classes in the 7^th and 5^th semesters only on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court on 16/7/2010 in WP(C) No.21549/10. Similarly, they could attend the 8^th semester and the 6^th semesters only based on Ext.P8 order and the consequential order passed by the Principal on 17/2/11. This therefore means that they could not have attended the classes any time prior to the aforesaid dates. In such a situation, to take the view that the petitioners were absent on dates prior to 20/7/2010 and 17/2/10 in the concerned semesters will be totally unrealistic and unjustified. This necessarily is a matter which the University will have to take note of when petitioners make request for condonation/regularisation of their absence in the aforesaid semesters.

¶77

Counsel for the petitioners submits that similar is the

¶78

WPC No. 12627/11

¶79

:7 :

¶80

situation as regards 7^th semester of second and third petitioners, who could attend the classes based on the interim order passed by this Court on 25/7/11 in IA No.10424/11. As already stated, this is a matter for the University to consider at the time when the application for condonation/regularisation is received from the College.

¶81

Clarifying the position as above, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:-

¶82

(1) That it will be open to the petitioners to make applications for condonation/regularisation of their absence in the concerned semesters.

¶83

(2) Such applications addressed to the University shall be submitted to the Principal along with the prescribed fee.

¶84

(3) Once applications are received, Principal shall make his recommendations and forward the applications to the University and the University will consider the said applications in the light of the recommendations of the Principal and also duly adverting to the observations in this judgment.

¶85

(4) Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible.

¶86

WPC No. 12627/11

¶87

:8 :

¶88

(5) Once orders are passed on the applications as above, depending upon the nature of the orders, consequential orders regarding the publication of withheld results of the petitioners should also be passed by the University.

¶89

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶90

Alex L.Abraham v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alex L.Abraham v. Mahatma Gandhi University

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

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

Dr.Devang Chandrakant Tank Vs State of Kerala and Others