Disposed

Amal Chandran v. the University of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2016WP(C)/22979/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that it cannot direct the University to permit petitioners to continue their course due to attendance shortage contrary to regulations but ordered the University to consider representations and pass orders within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directing the University to consider representations submitted by petitioners and pass appropriate orders within one month.

Amal Chandran Vs the University of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/11TH ASWINA, 1938 WP(C).No. 22979 of 2016 (V) ----------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

1. AMAL CHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 22 YEARS, 7TH SEMESTER B.TECH (MECHANICAL) ENGINEERING STUDENT, U.K.F. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT 'CHITHRALAYAM, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM PO, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED NOUFAL N.S., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.NAZARUDEEN, 7TH SEMESTER B.TECH (MECHANICAL) ENGINEERING STUDENT, U.K.F. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT 'CHARUVILA VEEDU', MUSLIM STREET, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SRI.R.REJI

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR - 695 001.

¶10

2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR - 695 001.

¶11

3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

4. THE PRINCIPAL, U.K.F COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 574. R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 22979 of 2016 (V)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BEARING NO.13429066

¶19

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER BEARING NO.13429043.

¶20

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BEARING NO.UKF/OD-I/30-0/176 DT. 02.04.2016

¶21

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BEARING NO.UKF/OD-I/30-0/175 DT. 02.04.2016

¶22

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.27.5.2016 IN WPC NO.18257/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DT.18.6.2016

¶24

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DT.18.6.2016

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE REGULATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT FOR B.TECH ENGINEERING COURSES.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 22979 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the

¶35

following reliefs:

¶36

“(i) To issue a declaration that petitioners are entitled to attend the VII Semester classes of B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) at U.K.F.College of Engineering and Technology, Parippally, Kollam and to pay fees and complete their registration in respect of their VII Semester B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) course not withstanding Exhibits P3 and P4.

¶37

(ii) To issue a further declaration that it is illegal on the part of the 4^th respondent to protract the inquiry proceedings and to kept the petitioners under suspension indefinitely despite direction in Exhibit P5 judgment.

¶38

(iii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, calling for the records leading upto Exhibit P7 and quash Exhibits P3 and P4 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶39

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order, directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to attend their VII Semester Classes of

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 22979 of 2016

¶41

-2-

¶42

B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) at U.K.F.College of Engineering and Technology, Parippally, Kollam, to accept their fees and to complete registration in respect of their VII Semester B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) course.

¶43

v)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order, directing the second respondent to consider Exhibits P6 and P7, after affording an opportunity of hearing.

¶44

Statement has been filed by the fourth respondent inter alia stating as under:

¶45

“4. The allegation and averment contained in

¶46

Paragraphs 4 to 6 are not fully correct hence, denied by this respondent except those which are admitted herein under. It

¶47

is important to note that, based on the enquiry conducted by the college committee recommended this respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioners. Accordingly, the college council decided to suspend the petitioner w.e.f. 2.4.2016 and directed them not to enter the college campus, bus and hostel without specific written permission from the principal. These students/Petitioners with others were

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 22979 of 2016

¶49

constantly making disturbances to the college atmosphere, despite several warnings. They are also involved in various other incidents and got eight suspensions earlier also. It is also submitted that the 4^th respondent is only complying with the rules of the University when it come to examinations. As per the University rules, a student will be permitted to appear the University examination only if he/she secures not less than 76% attendance, in the total number of working periods during the first year and in each semester thereafter and shall be physically present in at least 50 % of total working periods for subjects. For the petitioners, at the end of the semester, the aggregate attendance as well as the subject attendance was well below the required 75% and 50% respectively. It is true that the students were barred from attending the VII semester class on account of the continuation of suspension. They were also unable to pay the fees nor able to complete registration in respect of the VII semester. Towards this, it is submitted that the petitioners were appeared provisionally for the VI semester

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 22979 of 2016

¶51

-4-

¶52

examination with the help of Hon'ble court order. Their suspension was revoked at the end of the VI semester. Due to their attendance shortage the students could not register to VII semester as per the University regulation.”

¶53

“5. The allegation and averment contained in Paragraph 7 are not fully correct hence, denied by this respondent except those which are admitted herein under. The principal had constituted an enquiry committee on 05.04.2016 which inquired into the students and submitted the report on 07.04.2016. The report of the committee was placed in the college council for discussion. The parents of all the students were invited for discussion. But the parents of the petitioners didn't turn up for the meeting. Consequent to this, the report was presented to PTA executive committee on 25.5.2016 which agreed to go with the decision of the college council. Further, it is submitted that the academic performance of the petitioners were very low. The 1^st petitioner who got admission through lateral entry got 10 back papers in different

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 22979 of 2016

¶55

-5-

¶56

semesters (Reg.No. 13429066). The second petitioner got 20 back papers in different semesters (Reg. No. 13429043). The constant support from the highly efficient college academic apparatus ends up in vain as the petitioners are reluctant to perform or to maintain tranquility in the college campus. The intransigent attitude of the petitioners in disturbing the peaceful ambience of the campus makes the quest for knowledge of the needy students difficult. From their performance, it is clear that their only requirement is only a course certificate not a B Tech Degree. Hence, all the grounds raised by the petitioners are not legally sustainable hence, liable to be dismissed.”

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that the petitioners had approached the University seeking for interference in the matter by submitting Exts.P6 and P7.

¶58

Having regard to the factual situations involved in the matter, when there is shortage of attendance in the sixth semester, I do not think that this Court can issue directions to

¶59

W.P.(C) No. 22979 of 2016

¶60

-6-

¶61

permit the petitioners to continue with the 7^th semester course, since the same would be contrary to the Regulations issued by the University. However, it is for the University to take final decision, taking into account the representation submitted by the petitioners as Exts.P6 and P7.

¶62

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under: University shall consider Exts.P6 and P7 and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment

¶63

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE

¶64

JUDGE

¶65

Scl/03.10.2016

Amal Chandran v. the University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amal Chandran v. the University of Kerala

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

Sunil Sekhar S. Vs Saju George, Secretary, Kerala Psc

Kishan K. Shylajan Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner (Wc)

A.P.Moideenkutty Haji Vs State of Kerala

Joseph O.J.@ Kunjumon Vs Authorised Officer

K.Mohandas Vs the Guruvayoor Municipality