Disposed

Mridul S.V v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2011WP(C)/19420/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their termination from a college role, alleging it resulted from illegal fee demands rather than absences. The Court held it could not resolve factual disputes regarding fees under Article 226 and disposed of the petition without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

This writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to rights of the parties to adjudicate the matter before appropriate authorities.

Mridul S.V Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 19420 of 2011(B)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. MRIDUL S.V., SREEVALSAM, PANTHALAYANI, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE-673 305.

¶10

2. SREEDHARAN M.K., SREEVALSAM, PANTHALAYANI, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE-673 305.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

2. PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

3. PRINCIPAL, DR.A.K.B'S MISSION TRUST, KOYILANDY, MUDAKKALLOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶17

4. DR.A.K.B'S MISSION TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATE OFFICE, MUDAKKALLOOR P.O. KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SRI.JAGAN GEORGE, SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, SRI.ONEAL SABU.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Kss

¶21

WPC.NO.19420/2011 B

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS;

¶24

P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 20/12/2010 ISSUED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

P2: COPY OF THE APPROVED PROSPECTUS FOR SELECTION AND ADMISSION OF CANDIDATES TO “NURSE CUM PHARMACIST COURSE” IN HOMOEOPATHY 2010-2011.

¶26

P3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 10/06/2008 GRANTING PERMISSION TO START THE NCP COURSE IN UNAIDED SECTOR.

¶27

P4 & P5:COPIES OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD. 14/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS RESPECTIVELY.

¶28

P6: COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DTD. 28/06/2011 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,750/- DRAWN UPON VIJAYA BANK, CARUTI ROAD, CALICUT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶29

P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 02/07/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY 2ND PETITIONER.

¶30

P8: COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER BEARING THE ENDORSEMENT THAT THE LETTER WAS REFUSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 06/07/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY 2ND PETITIONER.

¶32

P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/07/2011 SENT BY REGISTERED POST BY THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶33

P11: COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER DTD. 04/07/2011 IN WHICH EXT. P9 WAS SENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶34

P12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/03/2011 IN WPC.NO.7655/2011.

¶35

P13: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 02./08/2011 SUBMITTED BY 5 MEMBERS COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

P14: COPY OF THE DIRECTION DTD. 12/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, PRINCIPAL.

¶37

P15: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶38

P16: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/08/2011 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Kss

..2/-

..2....

WPC.NO.19420/2011 B

¶43

P17: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DTD. 19/01/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE TEACHERS CONCERNED.

¶44

P18: COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET DTD. 23/02/2011 WRITTEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND VALUED BY THE TEACHER CONCERNED.

¶45

P19: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DTD. 16/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND VALUED BY THE TEACHER CONCERNED.

¶46

P19: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DTD. 16/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE TEACHERS CONCERNED.

¶47

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶48

ANNEX.R1(A):COPY OF SYLLABUS FOR NURSE-CUM-PHARMACIST COURSE IN HOMEOPATHY AS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶49

ANNEX.R1(B): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE TRUST ASSIGNING NURSING - WARD DUTIES FOR THE STUDENTS FROM 01/03/2011 IN MALABAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE.

¶50

R1(C): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE STUDENTS FOR THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH, APRIL, MAY AND JUNE.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶55

W.P.(c) No. 19420 OF 2011

¶56

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011

¶57

J U D G M E N T

¶58

In this writ petition the petitioners are challenging Ext.P10 order thorough which the 1^st petitioner is terminated from the roll of 4^th respondent institution. The reasons stated for termination of Ext.P10 is that the Head of the Department has reported unauthorised continuous absence of the 1^st petitioner. But according to the petitioners the actual reason for termination is not unauthorised absence as alleged, and it is only because the petitioners have not yielded to the illegal demands raised by respondents 3 and 4 for payment of excess fees than what is stipulated in Ext.P2 prospectus.

¶59

In the detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, the allegations are refuted. It is contended that the petitioners have not remitted the prescribed fee, even as admitted in the averments in the writ petition. However, the dispute regarding the payments

¶60

W.P.(c) No.19420/2011 -2-

¶61

which being a factual aspect, this Court cannot resolve the same in matters in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶62

The petitioner had produced certain documents along with the reply affidavit, which will indicate that the 2^nd respondent had engaged an inspection team to conduct an inspection at the institution and to report veracity of the allegations. Exhibit P13 is the report submitted by the inspecting committee, which indicate serious irregularities noticed with respect to conduct of the institution. It is further noticed that, on the basis of the report of the inspection committee, the 2^nd respondent had issued Ex.P14 letter to the Principal of the 4^th respondent college. It is specifically directed that the 1^st petitioner as well as another student by name Surya A.S should be reinstated and shall be permitted to continue the course by providing all facilities in the institution. Exhibit P15 is a letter issued by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st petitioner and other student intimating about the directions issued to the Principal of the 4^th respondent institution.

¶63

W.P.(c) No.19420/2011

¶64

-3-

¶65

From Ext.P16 it is evident that 2^nd respondent has submitted a report before the 1^st respondent to take action against the 4^th respondent. According to the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, the inspection was conducted without notice and the alleged irregularities pointed out through the report of the committee has not been furnished to respondents 3 and 4. It is further contended that the inspection team has not questioned the Principal or staff of the institution or any statement has not been recorded from any authorised person. According to respondents 3 and 4 the directions contained in Exts.P14 and 15 for reinstatement of the students have not been issued to them, and the students concerned are continuing unauthorised absence.

¶66

However, I noticed that there is no relief sought for with respect to implementation of Exts.P14 and P15. According to the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P15 the 1^st petitioner was allowed to continue study in the 3^rd respondent. However, the above statement is refuted by the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Since no relief is

¶67

W.P.(c) No.19420/2011

¶68

-4-

¶69

sought for on the basis of Exts.P14 and P15 I am not proposing to conduct any adjudication on the controversy. Both the parties are left open to adjudicate the matter based on Exts.P14 and P15.

¶70

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to rights of the parties to adjudicate the matter before appropriate authorities.

¶71

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶72

AMG

¶73

True copy

¶74

P.A to Judge

Mridul S.V v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mridul S.V v. State of Kerala

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

Geethakumary Vs the Authorised Officer

Vinto Somy Vs Intelligence Officer and Others

A.Salahudeen & Others Vs State of Kerala & Another

N.Gopinathan Vs the District Collector,Trivandrum & Ors.

Ramani.P.I Vs the Secretary,Vazhayaoor Scb and Others

Shakeela Vs Revenue Divisional Officer