Disposed

Rajeswari v. Dr.M.Jayaprakas

Kerala HC29 Nov 2016Con.Case(C)/1913/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, a petition was filed concerning directions regarding the change of a research supervisor. The Court heard submissions from both sides and observed that the petitioner had an opportunity to breach and the university had raised a counter-argument. The case was closed without granting relief or qualifying costs.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was closed. No costs awarded.

Rajeswari Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakas — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1913 of 2016 (S) -------------------------------WP(C) 26091/2016, DATED 5/8/2016 RP 722/2016, DATED 25/8/2016

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER:

¶7

RAJESWARI, AGED 34, D/O.K.N.CHATHUKUTTY, KALLEMOOCHICKAL, KALYAN, NADUTHARA, VENOLY ROAD, PUDUSSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -678 023.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/4TH RESPONDENT:

¶10

DR.M.JAYAPRAKAS, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REGISTRAR-IN-CHARGE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 005.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

Con.Case(C).No. 1913 of 2016 (S)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

¶17

ANNEXURE I:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/8/16 IN WPC.2691/16
ANNEXURE II:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/8/16 IN RP.722/16 IN WPC.26091/16
ANNEXURE III:	COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 27/9/16 BY RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE IV:	COPY OF REPLY DATED 29/9/16 TO ANNEXURE III PROCEEDINGS
ANNEXURE V:	COPY OF REPLY DATED 12/10/16 TO ANNEXURE III PROCEEDINGS
ANNEXURE III:	COPY OF MEMO DATED 2/11/16 WHICH IS ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE IV:	COPY OF REPRESENTATION IN THIS REGARD DATED 5/11/16 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT

¶18

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE

¶19

--------------------NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶24

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1913 of 2016 (S) -----------------------------------------Dated: 29^th November, 2016

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The petitioner is concerned with the directions issued in Annexure I.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that as directed, the petitioner was heard on 27.09.2016. The Doctoral Committee recommended the change of Supervisor from Dr. Maya S. to Dr. T.K. Jayasree, who is an Assistant Professor in the Government College of Teacher Education, Thiruvananthapuram. A memo, to that effect, was also sent to the petitioner.

¶28

The petitioner responded by stating that Dr.T.K. Jayasree does not have the specialisation in Natural Science. The learned Counsel for the

¶29

COC No. 1913/2016

¶30

-2-

¶31

University submits that the petitioner's candidature for research is in Education; in which, the present Research Guide allotted has a specialization. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner has to challenge the recommendations made by the Doctoral Committee.

¶32

The contempt case would stand closed. No Costs.

¶33

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶34

jjj 29/11/16

Rajeswari v. Dr.M.Jayaprakas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeswari v. Dr.M.Jayaprakas

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

Varghese Kurian Vs Alangad Grama Panchayath

Unnikrishnan Vs the Vellinezhi Grama Panchayath

Mathew James Vs Kidangoor Grama Panchayath, Kottayam

Sunitha Suraj and Others Vs Secretary, Corporation of Thiruvananthap

Principal, Catholicate College Vs Shri. M.R.Unni

E.Prasanna Vs Kozhikode Corporation