Disposed

Chippy K.Maruvathu v. the Principal

Kerala HC1 Feb 2012WP(C)/1638/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought re-admission to the Government Law College after obtaining a transfer certificate. The court noted alleged vacancy of seats but was informed no seat remained after a fresh re-admission process. It directed the college to consider a fresh representation filed by the petitioner within a week.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation submitted within one week.

Chippy K.Maruvathu Vs the Principal — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/12TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 1638 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

CHIPPY K.MARUVATHU D/O. K.K. MARUVATHU, KUTHUKALLUNKAL HOUSE PANACHIKKAVU.P.O., PERUNNA WEST, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶10

1 THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER VINCENT K.C.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WPC NO. 1638 OF 2012

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE CALICUT SHOWING REMITTANCE OF TUTION FEE FOR THE FIRST YEAR LLB (5 YEAR) COURSE FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DATED 23-11-2011, BOOK NO. 39, SERIAL NO. 90 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE CALICUT.
EXT.P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SHOWING REMITTANCE OF TUTION FEE FOR THE FIRST YEAR LLB (5 YEAR) COURSE FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 FROM THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DATED 5-1-2012 SERIAL NO. 3/12 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT PRINCIPAL, GOVT.LAW COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9-1-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

\TRUE COPY\

PA TO JUDGE

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶24

W.P(C) No. 1638 of 2012

¶25

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1^st day of February, 2012.

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner secured admission to the LLB course in Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram on 25.11.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained a transfer certificate from the college for admission to some other course. Now the petitioner realises that it is better for the petitioner to continue studies in the Law College. The petitioner therefore now wants re-admission in Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner claims to have filed Ext.P5 representation in this regard before the Principal of the Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the same.

¶28

I passed the following interim order on 20.1.2012:

¶29

“Govt. Pleader shall get instructions from the Principal of the Govt. Law College, Thiruvananthapuram as to whether there is any vacant seat available and whether the petitioner can be accommodated in the seat without denying the legal claim of any other person.”

¶30

The learned Government Pleader submits that for three vacant seats available, re-admission was conducted on 12.1.2012 on which date, as per the directions from the University , available vacant seats were filled up. As such, there is no seat available for accommodating the petitioner, is the contention raised.

¶31

In view of the said circumstances, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Principal to dispose of Ext.P5. The learned

¶32

W.P(C) No. 1638 of 2012 -: 2 :-

¶33

Government Pleader on instructions submits that Ext.P5 has not been received. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following direction:

¶34

If the petitioner files another representation within one week, the respondent shall consider and pass orders on the same, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

Tds/

Chippy K.Maruvathu v. the Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chippy K.Maruvathu v. the Principal

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

M/S.Ampadiyil Granites Vs District Collector

C.P. Parameswaran Vs the District Collector

Varsha Vs Principal/Dean, Kerala University of Health and Allied Science

T.N.Satheedevi Vs Punjab National Bank

T.Ravi Vs the General Manager

C.M.Benny Vs District Collector, Kottayam