Partly allowed

University of Kerala v. Vinay K

Kerala HC14 Aug 2018WA/1712/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court's order postponing the 4th Semester P.G. examinations. It held the University not responsible for colleges' delay in commencing classes. However, allowing the appeal partially, the Court fixed the examination commencement date to August 20, 2018.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeals allowed. 4th Semester examination directed to commence from 20th August 2018; previous order of postponement set aside.

University of Kerala Vs Vinay K — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶5

TUESDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1940

¶6

W.A.No.1712 of 2018

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)26569/2018 DATED 10.8.2018

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:

¶9

1 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.

¶10

2 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,UNIVERISTY OF KERALA, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 4 AND 5:

¶13

1 VINAY K, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O BALACHANDRAN E, 4TH SEMESTER M.SC (PHYSICS) STUDENT, T.K.M ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT CHANDRAKANTHAM HOUSE, KAPPIL P.O, WANDOOR VIA) MALAPPURAM-679 328

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶15

3 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC), BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 110 001

¶16

4 THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIYAR COLLEGE (TKM) ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, KARIKKODE, KOLLAM 691 005

¶17

R1 BY ADVS.ABDUL JAWAD K.

¶18

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND

¶19

R3 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.08.2018 ALONG WITH W.A.1711/18, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No. 1712 of 2018

JUDGMENT

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

¶25

Heard Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the University of Kerala, appellants. Also heard Sri.P.M.Joseph and Sri.Abdul Jawad, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents/writ petitioners. Sri.Tek Chand, the learned Government Pleader is present and Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy is appearing for University Grants Commission (UGC).

¶26

These two writ appeals are filed by the Kerala University and their Controller of Examinations to challenge the judgment dated 10.8.2018 in the W.P.(C)Nos.25416/18 and 26569/18, whereby the writ petitions filed by the students was entertained and direction was issued to the Vice Chancellor of the University, to postpone the 4^th Semester Post Graduate Examination. It was projected in the W.P.(C)26569/18 that the student is undergoing the 4^th Semester M.Sc Physics course in the TKM Arts and Science College, Kozhikode affiliated to the Kerala University, which notified the academic calender for conducting the examination. However, since the 3^rd Semester examination, which should have started on 12.1.2018, got deferred to 1.3.2018, the classes for the the 4^th Semester P.G. curriculum commenced only from 12.3.2018.

¶27

The writ petitioners contended that the academic calender notified by the University, required that the 4^th Semester classes commence from 29.1.2018 and the examination be held on 30.7.2018. Further, the academic calender mandated that there be 90 teaching days or 450 teaching hours in each semester. As the classes for the 4^th Semester commenced belatedly, the students argued that the examination should now be postponed to facilitate the minimum mandatory working days or working hours, before examinations are held.

¶28

WA.No. 1712 of 2018

¶29

¶30

Under the UGC (Minimum Standard of Instruction for Grant of the Master's Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 there shall be not less than 180 working days in an academic year including holidays and vacations etc. and because the courses are imparted through the semester system, there shall be minimum 90 working days in each semester. That is how the academic calender prescribed 90 working days and 450 working hours.

¶31

The petitioners in W.P.(C)26569/18 produced certificates issued by some of the Government Colleges and affiliated colleges (the Ext.P5 to P14) to show that the college had less than 50 working days, for the 4^th Semester curriculum.

¶32

The writ court noted that originally the examination for the 4^th Semester was scheduled to commence from 10.8.2018, but was deferred to 17.8.2018. Next, the court posed the question whether the University can conduct the examination without holding the mandatory working days/hours, before the students are asked to appear in the examination.

¶33

The stand of the University was that along with the prescribed academic calender, it was also stipulated that any deficiency in conducting the classes shall be compensated by extra classes during working days or by conducting classes on holidays. Accordingly, it was argued that non compliance of the stipulated working hours, cannot be a justification to postpone the examination. It was also projected by the Standing Counsel appearing for the University that it is for the colleges to make up the shortfall in working hours or working days so that the students do not suffer any disadvantage.

¶34

While the students are right in contending that they will suffer for the failure of the college to hold the required number of classes during the Semester, it cannot be

¶35

WA.No. 1712 of 2018

¶36

¶37

overlooked that the University was not responsible for that situation. The individual colleges were aware of the delay, in starting of the 3^rd Semester examination and could have arranged for commencement of classes for the 4^th Semester curriculum, adhering to the notified academic calender. There was no restriction on the individual colleges to deal with the situation in order to adhere to the working days or working hours. At any rate, we have not been shown any Rules or statutory provision, which mandates that a college has to obtain prior approval of the University, to commence classes for the 4^th Semester, in accordance with the notified academic calender.

¶38

Thus, while the University may have been responsible for the belated commencement of the 3^rd Semester examination, they cannot be held accountable for the belated commencement of the 4^th Semester classes in the concerned colleges. We therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and declare that the University authorities need not postpone the examination.

¶39

At this stage, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners referred to the natural calamity affecting the State and requested for some relief for the students in the matter of preparing for the examination. Responding to this, after securing instruction from the University authorities, the learned counsel Sri.Thomas Abraham submits that instead of commencing on 17.8.2018, the 4^th Semester examination is now scheduled to commence from 20^th August, 2018 and the time table for the same would be notified today itself. He further submits that 2^nd paper of the examinations would be on 23^rd August, 2018 and the examination for the 3^rd and 4^th papers would be scheduled after the Onam holidays.

¶40

WA.No. 1712 of 2018

¶41

¶42

We have noted the above submission of the University's counsel, and finding that the above arrangement would provide some relief to the students, we allow these

¶43

Writ Appeals by declaring that the 4^th Semester examination would now commence from

¶44

20^th August 2018.

¶45

With the above directions, these cases stand disposed of.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

jes

University of Kerala v. Vinay K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

University of Kerala v. Vinay K

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

Sajithmol N.K. Vs the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala

Akhila Vs State of Kerala

P.R.Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf A.K Vs Byju

University of Kerala and Others Vs Shereef and Others

Arul Vs Unnikrishnanp.G.