Dismissed

Mariya P.A. v. M.G.University

Kerala HC1 Sept 2016WP(C)/23148/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ to allow her to continue M.Phil course and appear for exams despite being found unqualified for admission based on the qualifying exam results available on the closing date. The High Court of Kerala held that no legal right exists to continue the course without qualifications.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer to allow continuation of course and appear for exams was dismissed.

Mariya P.A. Vs M.G.University — 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

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/10TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 23148 of 2016 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

MARIYA P.A., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. ASHRAF P.A., PUZHANKARAYILLATH, P.O.MATHILAKAM, KODUNGALLOOR-680 685.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA

¶9

SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. M.G.UNIVERSITY, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS , M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

3. ST.XAVIER'S COLLEGE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, ALUVA.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADV. ASOK M. CHERIAN SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 23148 of 2016 (P)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 COPY OF THE STUDENT IDENTITY CARD.

¶21

P1(A) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE.

¶22

P1(B) COPY OF THE COURSE CERTIFICATE.

¶23

P1(C) COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF FEES.

¶24

P2 COPY OF THE 1ST SEMESTER MARK SHEET.

¶25

P2(A) COPY OF THE 2ND SEMESTER MARK SHEET.

¶26

P2(B) COPY OF THE 3RD SEMESTER MARK SHEET.

¶27

P2(C) COPY OF THE 4TH SEMESTER MARK SHEET.

¶28

P3 COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.23148 of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 1^st day of September 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the

¶38

following directions:

¶39

“i) issue a writ order or direction, declaring that petitioner is eligible to appear for 1^st semester M.Phil Exam scheduled for 15^th July, 2016 conducted by the M.G.University.

¶40

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear for the 1^st semester M.Phil Examinations scheduled for 15^th July, 2016.

¶41

iii) ii(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue her M-phil Course, including dissertation work and open defence.

¶42

Ii(b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, to the respondents to grant special permission to the petitioner to write 1^st semester M-Phil exam at the earliest.

¶43

W.P.C.No.23148/2016

¶44

¶45

ii(c) issue a writ or direction to award sufficient cost to the petitioner to compensate the mental trauma and hardship suffered by the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner.”

¶46

Even according to the petitioner, she was qualified in

¶47

the basic examination of M.Com only when the results were published by the University in May 2016. She joined M.Phil, for which M.Com is the basic Degree, on 30/01/2016. But, the University did not register her for admission on the ground that she was not qualified at the time of admission. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs:

¶48

During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner sought for a direction to allow her to continue the course including dessertation work and open defence.

¶49

A statement has been filed by the University inter alia stating that the tabulation section rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that she passed the qualifying examination after closing date of M.Phil(B.S), admission i.e on 30/05/2016.

¶50

Having regard to the fact that there was a specified date for closing the admission and as on that date, petitioner was

¶51

W.P.C.No.23148/2016

¶52

¶53

not qualified nor has she obtained the basic M.Com Degree, I do not think that this Court will be justified in permitting the petitioner to continue the course.

¶54

The question arises for consideration is whether the petitioner was qualified for admission to M.Phil course. Though the College had admitted the petitioner, the University did not register her at the relevant time since she was found to be not qualified as on the last date of admission. No provision has been brought to the notice of this Court to grant any relaxation either in the University Act or in the Statute. Under such circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner has any legal right to demand that

¶55

she should be permitted to continue the course.

¶56

This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶57

jsr

Mariya P.A. v. M.G.University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariya P.A. 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

Prasad Vs Shibu C

Roshini C.B. Vs State of Kerala

Abdu T.P. Vs Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Fianance Ltd.

M/S.Bristo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Canara Bank

Abhin K Vs the Director of Technical Education

Achutha Kumar K.V Vs Indusind Bank Limited