Disposed

Dr.N.Veeramanikandan v. Jyothikumar

Kerala HC20 Sept 2017RP/682/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition filed by a Vice-PRO to clarify duty of the University Syndicate. Court directed Syndicate to comply with prior directions on policy applicability to existing doctoral degree holders before acting on plagiarism report.

What did the court decide?

Syndicate of University directed to comply with prior High Court direction regarding policy applicability while acting on plagiarism report.

Dr.N.Veeramanikandan Vs Jyothikumar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/29TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 682 of 2017 () IN WP(C).10425/2017

¶6

AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10425/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA , DATED 28.3.2017.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT 3:

¶8

DR.N.VEERAMANIKANDAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE MANOHARAN MASTER, PRO-VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, RESIDING AT DEVADAYAM, VAYALIKKADA, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 013.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA ANAND

¶10

SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

¶12

1. JYOTHIKUMAR CHAMAKKALA, CHAMAKKALA, PANAYANCHERRY, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 306.

¶13

2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶14

3. THE SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR.

¶15

R2 & R3 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

RP.No. 682 of 2017 () IN WP(C).10425/2017

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE A1:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.24410 OF 2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶27

==================

¶28

R.P. No. 682 of 2017

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C.) No. 10425 of 2017

¶31

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2017

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The third respondent in the writ petition seeks review of the judgment. The parties and Exhibits are referred to in this order, as they appear in the writ petition.

¶34

The petitioner preferred a complaint before

¶35

the Syndicate of the first respondent University ('the University') alleging plagiarism in the matter of the third respondent obtaining his doctoral degree. On the said complaint, the Syndicate of the University appointed a sub-committee and the sub-committee submitted Ext.P9

¶36

report confirming the allegation of the petitioner. The

¶37

¶38

R.P. No.682/2017

¶39

grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition was the inaction on the part of the Syndicate of the University in taking further action on Ext.P9 report. The writ petition was disposed of, in the circumstances, directing the Syndicate of the University to take a decision on Ext.P9 report of the sub-committee after affording the third respondent an opportunity of hearing.

¶40

The learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent submits that there was an earlier writ petition by the third respondent seeking directions to the Syndicate of the University to refrain from giving effect to the decision of the sub-committee of the Syndicate and the present writ petition was one preferred suppressing the directions issued in the said writ petition. AnnexureA1 is the judgment in the said case. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent, if the direction issued by this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed is given effect to without complying with the direction issued by this Court in Annexure-A1, the third

¶41

¶42

R.P. No.682/2017

¶43

respondent will be put to grave prejudice and hence this review.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶45

submits that the petitioner was not a party to AnnexureA1 case and he had, therefore, no knowledge about the directions issued by this Court in the said case.

¶46

Having regard to the facts and

¶47

circumstances, I am of the view that the direction issued by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment should have been brought to the notice of this Court by the University when the matter was taken up for disposal.

¶48

Be that as it may. It is seen that in terms of Annexure-A1 judgment, this Court only directed the Syndicate of the University to consider whether Ext.P17 policy in Annexure-A1 case applies to persons who had obtained doctoral degrees prior to the introduction of the said policy, before acting further on the report of the subcommittee referred to in the judgment sought to be reviewed.

¶49

¶50

R.P. No.682/2017

¶51

In the said circumstances, the Review Petition is

¶52

disposed of clarifying that in the matter of complying with the direction issued in the judgment, the Syndicate of the University shall comply with the direction issued by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment also.

¶53

sd/-

¶54

SKS

¶55

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

P.A. TO JUDGE

Dr.N.Veeramanikandan v. Jyothikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.N.Veeramanikandan v. Jyothikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamid Yaffi Vs Sindhu N.B

The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs Radhakrishnan

Cicy Joseph Vs District Collector

P.Mohanan Vs Hydru E.K

V.E.Kabeer Vs the Deputy Director of Panchayats

Dyne I.U. Vs the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue)