Disposed

Jisha P.Sainudeen v. M.G.University

Kerala HC19 Dec 2011WP(C)/34205/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in this writ petition, observed that since revaluation results relate back to the examination prior to the petitioner's M.Tech. admission, her course attendance must be treated as regular, rendering her admission valid despite an initial failure.

What did the court decide?

Admission to M.Tech. course treated as regular by observing that revaluation results relate back to the examination conducted prior to such admission.

Jisha P.Sainudeen Vs M.G.University — 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 MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 34205 of 2010(A)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

----------------------JISHA P.SAINUDEEN, AGED 22, D/O. P.T.SAINUDEEN, WHITE HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, AMAYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686025.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI. JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI. BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

------------------------1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., PIN 686 001, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶11

2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF DO. DO.

¶12

3. THE SYNDICATE OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF DO. DO.

¶13

4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695 001

¶14

5. PRINCIPAL, RAJEEV GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM., PIN 686 001

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI . T.A. SHAJI SC R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

DCS

¶18

WP(C).No. 34205 of 2010(A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶21

EXT. P1: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S S.S.L.C. CERTIFICATE EXT. P2: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S H.S..S CERTIFICATE EXT. P3: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S SPORTS CREDENTIALS

¶22

EXT. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER RECOMMENDING TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT GRACE MARKS TO THE PETITIONER

¶23

EXT. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING GRACE MARKS TO THE PROFESSIONAL COURSE AND THE CONNECTED ORDERS

¶24

EXT. P6: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRO VICE CHANCELLOR DT 10.08.2010

¶25

EXT. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DT. 16.02.2010

¶26

EXT. P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION AND SCRUTINY EXT. P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. 27593 OF 2010 EXT. P10: COPY OF CERTIFICATE

¶27

EXT. P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 07.10.2010 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT. P12: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE UNIVERSITY DATED 23.10.2010 EXT. P13: COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DT.28.10.2010

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.34205 of 2010

¶34

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2011

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

In this writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P11, through which the norms pertaining to awarding of 'grace marks' was amended by the 1^st respondent University. The petitioner is seeking declaration to the effect that she is entitled for awarding 'grace marks' in view of Exts.P3, P5 and P7.

¶37

When the matter was taken up for final hearing on today, it was brought to the notice of this court that, on the basis of an application for revaluation submitted by the petitioner she was awarded more marks, resulting in declaration of pass in B.Tech. course. It is evident that the petitioner was admitted to M.Tech. course in a college under the 1^st respondent University, and she had completed the course. Since the revaluation result will relates back to

¶38

the examination conducted prior to her admission and also

¶39

W.P.(C).34205/10-A

¶40

-2-

¶41

to the result published before admitting the student to the Post Graduate Course, the admission to M.Tech course need be treated as regular.

¶42

Learned standing counsel for the 1^st respondent University pointed out that as on the date on which she was admitted to the Post Graduate Course, she was not eligible since she had failed in one of the subjects for B.Tech. course. But as observed above, since the results declared in revaluation relates back to the examination conducted prior to such admission, the Post Graduate Course attended by the petitioner (M.Tech.) need be treated as regular.

¶43

The above observation is made only on the particular circumstances of this case considering the admission given and that the petitioner had completed the study for final semester. This shall not be treated as a precedent in any other cases.

¶44

(Sd/-)

¶45

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶46

okb

¶47

True copy

¶48

P.A to Judge

Jisha P.Sainudeen v. M.G.University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jisha P.Sainudeen v. M.G.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

K.M.Shanu Vs John Varghese

Raju Cyriac Vs the Dist.Collector

Sreehari.M. Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors.

Geogy Varghese Vs Ammini P.G.

Vinodkumar P Vs Chairman,Federal Bank

M/S.Central Advertising Agency and Anr. Vs the State of Kerala and Others