Dismissed

Secretary Mudlim Educational Trust for Coastal Area v. Malavika Babu

Kerala HC16 Aug 2018WA/1715/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed Writ Appeal filed by a college against a single Judge's order allowing a student's readmission and return of testimonials. The single Judge had held that marriage does not constitute misconduct and reinstated the student based on fundamental rights under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; directions of single Judge treated as valid by the High Court.

Secretary Mudlim Educational Trust for… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶6

THURSDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶7

WA.No. 1715 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN 16906/2018 DT.28.6.2018

¶9

APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 2 AND3 IN WRIT PETITION:

¶10

1 SECRETARY MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR COASTAL AREA (METCA)TRUST, CHMM COLLEGE FOR ADAVANCED STUDIES, METCA LAND, CHAVARCODE, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O., VARKALA , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695146

¶11

2 PRINCIPAL, CHMM COLLEGE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES METCA LAND, CHAVARCODE, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 146.

¶12

BY ADVS. ABDUL AZEEZ T.H. MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A SHANKAR V.

¶13

RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONERS 1 AND 2/RESPONDENT NO.1:

¶14

1 MALAVIKA BABU, D/O BABU, AGED 20 YEARS

¶15

SAJEELA NIVAS, PARIPPALLY, KALLUVATHUKKAL, VARKALA, KOLLAM 695141

¶16

2 VYSAKH, S/O VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 21 YEARS, KUNNUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MUTTARA P.O., ODANAVATTOM, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM 691506.

¶17

3 VICE CHANCELLOR (IN CHARGE), UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.

¶18

BY ADVS.SYAM J SAM

¶19

SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

HRISHIKESH ROY, C.J.

¶22

¶23

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶24

W.A.No.1715 of 2018

¶25

Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

¶28

Heard Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez, the learned counsel for the appellants as also Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala University.

¶29

This appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P(C).16906/18, to challenge the judgment therein, dated 28.6.2018. The respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners were pursuing their studies in the CHMM College for Advanced Studies, Varkala, Trivandrum and they approached the court to enable the first petitioner, to pursue her studies in the college managed by the second respondent. A further direction to the college authorities to return back the certificates of the second petitioner was also applied thereby permitting him to discontinue his course. It was projected that the act of the appellants in disallowing the first petitioner to continue her course in the college, is violative of her fundamental and statutory rights.

¶30

The learned Judge, after considering the fact that the two petitioners were in love relationship and have since married, declared that a situation where a love affair has resulted in marriage, cannot be treated as a misconduct, breaching discipline of the institution. It was also observed that the act of

¶31

WA.1715/18

¶32

¶33

discipline cannot be used as a weapon to impose personal moral values of the persons managing the college, on their students.

¶34

According to the learned Judge, while the educational institution is at liberty to impose discipline amongst the pupil to secure the objective standards of education, this will not allow them to impose moral paternalism upon students, notwithstanding their departure from the values, considered to be relevant by the institution. The availability of the freedom of choice by the petitioners was also positively commended upon by the learned Judge, by recognizing the fundamental rights of the petitioners, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by referring to the judgment in K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India reported in (2017)10 SCC 1.

¶35

The appellants however contend that since the first petitioner has filed Ext.P4 application for re-admission, she cannot be allowed to pursue her studies as she voluntarily discontinued her course, on account of her elopement and marriage. It is further submitted that the delay in attendance, as was directed to be condoned by the learned Judge, cannot also be granted on the ground that the applicant had got married in the mean time.

¶36

We notice from the impugned judgment that the learned Judge took note of all the projections made from the respondents' side and bearing in mind the freedom of choice and the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution, issued direction for re-admission of the first petitioner within two weeks from the date of the judgment, based upon the application made by her. The college

¶37

WA.1715/18

¶38

¶39

authorities, in turn, were directed to enable the first petitioner to continue the course, in accordance with the University Regulations. Moreover the University was directed to condone the delay in attendance, in accordance with the applicable norms. A further direction was issued to the college authorities to return the academic testimonials of the second petitioner as he was no more interested to pursue his studies in the college.

¶40

We have assessed the basis of the impugned verdict and find that the appellants cannot take a moral stand on the issue, considering the requirement to impart education and the constitutional rights available to the individual. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the learned single Judge are found to be as merited and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed to treat the Ext.P4 as the application of the first petitioner, for the purpose of complying with the directions in the judgment in W.P(C).16906/18.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

kkb.

Secretary Mudlim Educational Trust for Coastal Area v. Malavika Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary Mudlim Educational Trust for Coastal Area v. Malavika Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashraf A.K Vs Byju

University of Kerala and Others Vs Shereef and Others

University of Kerala Vs Vinay K

Arul Vs Unnikrishnanp.G.

Suo Motu Vs Sri.Biju Antony Aloor @ B.a.Aloor

Bbiju Antony Aloor @ B S Aloor Vs the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam