Dismissed

Midhun Jemsin, v. Kerala University for Health Sciences

Kerala HC10 May 2022WP(C)/4108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three MBBS students challenged orders disqualifying them from five examination chances for malpractice in the Third Professional MBBS Part I examination. Enquiries found answer booklets were smuggled out and answers written by others, invoking impersonation under Clause 9 of the Examination Manual. The High Court found no grounds to interfere under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Midhun Jemsin, Vs Kerala University for Health… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 10THDAY OF MAY 2022 / 20TH VAISAKHA,1944

¶3

WP(C) NO. 2241 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

PRANAV G. MOHAN
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.CHANDRAMOHANAN NAIR,
PRANAVAM, PLRA 162, PANACHAMKODE LANE,
PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 004.
BY ADVS.
V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
P.R.REENA

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 596.

¶8

2 CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 596.

¶9

3 VICE CHANCELLOR KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 596.

¶10

4 AZEEZIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE & RESEARCH DIAMOND HILL, MEEYANOOR POST, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 537, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL.

¶11

BY ADV SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA
UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

¶12

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORHEARINGON
07.04.2022,ALONGWITHWP(C).2842/2022,4108/2022,THECOURT
ON 10.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶14

:2:

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 20TH VAISAKHA, 1944

¶16

WP(C) NO. 2842 OF 2022

¶17

PETITIONER:

¶18

MR.NABEEL SAJID
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.SAJID HUSSAIN,
RESIDING AT TC.17/50, GREEN GARDEN LANE,
ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695011

¶19

BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
R.GITHESH
MANJUNATH MENON
AJAY BEN JOSE
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
HARIKRISHNAN S.
ANNA LINDA V.J
P.MARTIN JOSE

¶20

RESPONDENTS:

¶21

1THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
PIN - 680596
2THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 596

¶22

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶23

:3:

¶24

3THE BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS
THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY THE EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY,
THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS.
PIN - 680596

¶25

BY ADVS.
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, COUNSEL FOR THE
CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES IN KERALA
SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES

¶26

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORHEARINGON
07.04.2022,ALONGWITHWP(C).2241/2022,4108/2022,THECOURT
ON 10.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶28

:4:

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 20TH VAISAKHA, 1944

¶30

WP(C) NO. 4108 OF 2022

¶31

PETITIONER:

¶32

MIDHUN JEMSIN,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.DR.JEMSIN,
PRAVANAM, EDACKADOM P.O., EZHUKONE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 505,
(MBBS STUDENT, REG. NO.120010257),
AZEEZIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,
MEEYANNOOR, KOLLAM-691 537.
BY ADV R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI

¶33

RESPONDENTS:

¶34

1 KERALA UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR-680 596.

¶35

2 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KERALA UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR-680 596.

¶36

3 THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, KERALA UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY THE HON'BLE VICE CHANCELLOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR-680 596.

¶37

4 THE PRINCIPAL, AZEEZIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEEYANNOOR, KOLLAM-691 537.

¶38

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶39

:5:

¶40

5 THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF EXAMINATIONS, (HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF ANATOMY), AZEEZIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEEYANNOOR, KOLLAM-691 537.

¶41

6 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR-680 596.

¶42

BY ADV SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES

¶43

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORHEARINGON
07.04.2022,ALONGWITHWP(C).2241/2022,2842/2022,THECOURT
ON 10.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶45

:6:

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

The petitioners herein are students pursuing their MBBS Course in the Azeezia Institute of Medical Sciences, Kollam, (‘the Institution’ for short) an institution affiliated to the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS). The 3rd Professional MBBS - Part I Examinations were conducted by the University in the month of January, 2021. The Governing Council of the KUHS based on an enquiry report submitted by the Malpractices and Lapses Enquiry Committee (‘M&LEC’ for short), which is a body constituted by the University to inquire into malpractices in the examination, has taken punitive action against the petitioners and by invoking Chapter XII, Clause I(A) 9 of the Examination Manual has disqualified the petitioners for committing impersonation and has interdicted them from appearing for the examinations for up to 5 chances. The said order was confirmed by the Vice Chancellor pursuant to the challenge raised by some of the petitioners. The above orders are under challenge in these writ petitions.

¶48

In view of the common issues raised, these matters are taken up and disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of ease and clarity, the parties and Exhibits shall be as referred to in W.P.(C) No.2842/2022 unless otherwise stated.

¶49

The petitioners contend that they are students pursuing the MBBS

¶50

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶51

:7:

¶52

course at the Azeezia Institute of Medical Sciences. The 3rd year MBBS Examination was held on 4th, 8th and 11th of January, 2021. The University has brought out the examination manual, which details the steps involved in the conduct of University Theory Examinations. As is evident from Ext.P1, a foolproof method has been devised by the University and there is no scope for committing any malpractices. The petitioners had appeared for the examinations 45 minutes prior to the commencement of the examination and the answer booklet containing about 50 pages was supplied to the petitioners. The printout of the question paper is taken only after the students are inside the examination hall in the presence of the Chief Examiner and the Observer of the University. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2842/2022 contends that the booklet handed over to him contained only 30 pages instead of 50 pages. When he reported the matter to the Invigilator, the Chief Superintendent along with the Invigilators came to his seat and he was reprimanded. All the petitioners dutifully wrote the answers and the answer booklets were handed over to the Invigilator. Much later, the petitioners received notice from the M&LEC and they were asked to appear before the Enquiry Committee. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2241/2022 was not in a position to appear for the enquiry. The others appeared and they asserted that they were innocent. Later, order dated 10.5.2021 was issued as per which, the petitioners were disqualified for 5 chances from appearing for the University examinations. It is stated in the order that the enquiry conducted has

¶53

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶54

:8:

¶55

revealed that the answer booklets received at the University on behalf of the petitioners were taken out from the examination hall intentionally and the same had been manipulated. Since the ultimate beneficiaries of the malpractice were the petitioners and the said fact has been proven beyond doubt in the enquiry, they were liable to be punished as per the relevant provisions of the examination manual. Directions were also issued to the management of Azeezia Institute of Medical Sciences to conduct a detailed enquiry into the entire incident and to find out the role of the persons who were responsible for committing the manipulations. The petitioners contend that there were no materials before the respondents to conclude that the petitioners were involved in the manipulation of the papers. The petitioners were in the examination hall and this fact would be evident from the footage of the CCTV and as no person had entered the examination hall and had impersonated the petitioners, the relevant provisions of the examination manual could not have been invoked against the petitioners.

¶56

Challenging the order passed by the Governing Council, some of the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Vice Chancellor. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2842/2022 and W.P.(C) No. 4108/2022 approached this Court and filed separate writ petitions seeking to quash the order passed by the Governing Council. Later, pursuant to directions issued by this Court, the Vice Chancellor considered their representations and refused to interfere with the orders

¶57

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶58

:9:

¶59

passed by the Governing Council. Challenging the proceedings, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the orders passed by the Governing Council which was confirmed by the Vice Chancellor and for consequential reliefs.

¶60

A statement has been filed by the learned standing counsel for the respondents on 2.3.2022. An additional statement was later placed on record. In the statement so filed, the KUHS has stated in detail the events which led to the disqualification of the petitioners. It is stated that the University has framed norms for conducting the examination in a proper manner and to avoid malpractices. The University relies on the support and cooperation of the College officials to ensure that the norms and guidelines issued by the University are strictly adhered to. The MBBS Examination is held with Exam Centers in each of the Medical Colleges affiliated to the University. The Examinations are overseen by the Chief Superintendent, who is a senior faculty in the institution. The answer booklets used for the examination carry unique identification numbers and barcodes. The University used a 9 digit bar coded answer booklet till the year 2016 and thereafter the same was replaced by a 10 digit bar coded answer booklet. The University does not provide additional sheets for the examination as the answer booklet contains a sufficient number of pages. Before sending the answer booklets to the University, the slip from the answer booklets carrying the Serial Number and Bar Codes are detached and the same is dispatched to the University in a separate cover. After the

¶61

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶62

:10:

¶63

valuation, the University cross checks the answer booklets with the detached slips and results are prepared. In the case of the 3rd Professional Part I MBBS Examination held in January 2021, the Information and Technology Department of the University reported a mismatch of the slips and answer booklets. On further verification, it was found that 9 digit bar coded answer booklet had reached the University and also that the answer booklet of one of the students was missing. The M&LEC was ordered to conduct an enquiry. The statements of the students who had appeared in the examination, the staff involved in the process and others were questioned and on the conclusion of the enquiry, Ext.R1A report showing the involvement of the petitioners in the malpractice was submitted before the Board of Examinations. The Board of Examinations approved the report of the M&LEC and recommended that the students found responsible be debarred as per the Examination manual. The recommendation of the Board of Examinations was placed before the Governing Council in its 64th meeting and after due deliberation, by Ext.R1B minutes, imposed the punishment of barring the petitioners from appearing in 5 chances of examinations for the MBBS Course.

¶64

The University has narrated the manner in which the manipulation was carried out. It is stated that the petitioners have entered the examination hall very late and had pretended that they were writing the examination. With the assistance and concurrence of certain individuals who are responsible for the proper conduct of

¶65

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶66

:11:

¶67

the examinations, old and obsolete answer booklets were handed over to the petitioners. While they were pretending to write the examinations, 3 other persons, sitting elsewhere in the college, wrote the answers on dictation by an expert. The answers written were verbatim copies of each other showing that the answers were deliberately copied from a common source. Thereafter, the answer booklets were changed but in the process, a mistake was committed while swapping the answer book. Somehow an old answer booklet, carrying the 9 digit serial number was mistakenly put in the packet and the answer booklet relating to another student was removed and destroyed. When this mistake was detected, an enquiry was initiated. It is stated that for impersonation, the examination manual provides for the punishment of barring 5 chances in the examination. It is also stated that based on the information given by the Vice Principal of the Institution, Crime No. 346/2021 of the Kannanallur Police Station has been registered on 26.5.2021 inter alia under Sections 417, 419, 465, 468, 471 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶68

I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel as instructed by Sri. Martin Jose, Sri. Ranjith Thampan, the learned senior counsel as instructed by Sri. V.M.Krishnakumar, Sri. R. Pushpangathan Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.P.Sreekumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University.

¶69

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶70

:12:

¶71

I have considered the submissions advanced and have carefully gone through the records.

¶72

The petitioners have been disqualified from appearing for 5 chances in the University Examinations for committing malpractice in the 3rd Professional MBBS Part I examination which was held in the month of January 2021. In essence, the contention of the petitioners is that they are innocent of the allegations. They contend that the CCTV clippings would reveal that they were inside the examination hall and that no one else had impersonated them. The rule which is relied on by the University for disqualifying them would not be attracted as no impersonation had taken place. They would also contend that the University has ensured that a foolproof procedure is followed during examinations and according to them, no reliance can be placed either on the enquiry conducted by the M&LEC or the subsequent decisions taken by the Board of Examinations or the Governing Council which was approved by the Vice Chancellor.

¶73

Before delving into the contentions, it would be appropriate to look at the relevant provisions of the examination manual which provides for Guidelines/ Regulations/Disciplinary action/ Penalty imposed for Malpractices/ Improper Conduct of Examinations. Clauses 6, 7 and 9 are of some relevance.

¶74

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶75

:13:

¶76

6	If the candidate smuggles in or out or replaces answer book during or after the exam, with or without the connivance of any staff or arranges to send the question paper out of the hall during the examination	Shall be disqualified for upto two chances including that in which he/she is found guilty.
7	If the candidate takes away the answer book outside the examination hall, or intentionally tears off, or otherwise disposes of the answer book or any part thereof.	Shall be disqualified for upto two chances including that in which he/she is found guilty.
9	If impersonation is detected.	The impersonator shall be dealt with in accordance with law at the spot. If he/she is on the roll of the University, the Committee may also recommend to disqualify him from appearing for any University exam for upto 5 chances including that in which he/she is found guilty. If he/she is not on the University rolls, he/she will not be admitted to any course under the University for a period upto 5 chances besides initiating criminal proceedings for the offence of impersonation. The Candidate for whom impersonation was attempted also will be disqualified for upto 5 chances.

¶77

With the above understanding, if one looks at the specific allegations

¶78

against the petitioners, what is borne out is that the IT Department of the KUHS, in the course of data processing, came across a mismatch of one answer booklet with the Part I slip. As per the University guidelines, before sending the answer booklet to the University, the slip from the answer booklet carrying the Serial Number and Barcode are to be detached and sent separately to the University in a separate cover. After the valuation is over, the officer concerned is required to cross-check

¶79

:14:

¶80

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶81

the answer booklets with the detached slips and only thereafter, the results are prepared. The IT Department noticed a mismatch of slips and answer booklets and an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the M&LEC. The M&LEC report reveals that at least 8 instances of malpractices were found and their magnitude was such that their disclosure would overturn the confidentiality and credibility of the examination system. After conducting a detailed enquiry, it was found that the answer booklets received at the University on behalf of the petitioners were manipulated and the persons responsible for the same are still not identified by the College. The enquiry revealed that the answer booklets were taken out of the examination hall and some other persons have written the answers in those answer booklets. The answers written by those persons whose identity has been obtained show that the answers are verbatim copies of each other and it was also revealed that the answers were deliberately copied from a common source.

¶82

12. Records reveal that the Controller of Examinations ordered the College

¶83

authorities to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding the malpractice and had ordered to

¶84

(i) surrender the missing answer book.

¶85

(ii) identify and report the persons involved in writing the answer books on behalf of the three students.

¶86

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶87

:15:

¶88

(iii) identify and report the persons who supported the malpractice.

¶89

In terms of the directions issued by the Controller of Examinations, the College authorities constituted an Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. Liaquat Roopesh Johnson, Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Community Medicine. Two retired police officers, a legal practitioner and the Principal of the Azeezia College of Nursing were the members of the Committee. Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No. 2842/2022 is the report submitted by the Committee.

¶90

Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the enquiry committee has concluded that after verification of the handwriting of the petitioners, the University has already entered into a finding that the students have indulged in examination malpractices by means of impersonation and misplacement of answer booklets. It is also recorded that there is no need for any fresh finding regarding the said exam malpractices committed by the students. To arrive at such a finding the five member committee has considered the statements of all concerned. Suffice is to note that the manner in which the petitioners had involved themselves in the manipulation and violation of the norms are detailed in the report. The fact that the petitioners are students who are lagging in their studies since 2011 and the manner in which the persons involved had carried out their devious plan are detailed somewhat elaborately in the report. The said report clearly lends credence to the finding

¶91

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶92

:16:

¶93

arrived at by the M&LEC and approved by the Governing council.

¶94

The Enquiry Committee has considered the other issues and after issuing certain recommendations to prevent such malpractices from occurring in future has issued the following conclusions.

¶95

Conclusions:

¶96

The Chief Superintendent of the exams Dr. Prakash K.G. and Invigilators are found guilty of examination malpractices that occurred on 4th, 6th, 8th and 11th January, 2021.

¶97

The College is directed to initiate disciplinary action against Dr.Prakash, Chief Superintendent, towards termination from service for his misconduct of examination malpractices.

¶98

The three Invigilators involved in the exam malpractices shall be permanently debarred from any future examination duties. Necessary disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated against them so as to impose a punishment of not less than increment bar for two years.

¶99

The IT support staff Mr. Arun Mohan and Office Staff Mrs. Prasanna shall also be debarred from future examination duties and necessary disciplinary proceedings shall also be initiated against them so as to impose a punishment of not less than increment bar for two years.

¶100

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶101

:17:

¶102

The police case registered at the instance of the College with respect to the exam malpractice shall be pursued with full vigor and all possible steps are to be taken to identify the culprits and bring them before law.

¶103

The missing answer book of Mr. Sanjeed is not traceable and also it is believed to have been irrecoverably destroyed by the culprits.

¶104

On going through the report, I find that the guidelines issued by the University to ensure that the examination is kept free of all malpractice were all clearly violated. The answer booklets were placed on the examination table even prior to the arrival of the invigilators, the petitioners herein had entered the examination hall at 9.20 am., the manner in which the answer booklets were switched etc. are all detailed. Having considered the reports before this Court, it is next to impossible to conclude that the petitioners had nothing to do with the manipulation carried out or that the petitioners have been made scapegoats. On the contrary, the role played by them to somehow pass the exam is clearly evident. In other words, they are the sole beneficiaries. The manner in which they changed their version at various stages of the enquiry and the letters disclosing the role played by them all stand testimony to the grave fraud perpetrated by a group of persons to undermine the entire system. Even the enquiry conducted by the college has disclosed damning allegations against the persons responsible.

¶105

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶106

:18:

¶107

In view of the discussion above, I have no doubt in my mind that in pursuance to a conspiracy hatched in secrecy, the answer booklets and question papers were smuggled out of the examination hall with the concurrence of the Chief Superintendent, Invigilators and support IT Staff and thereafter, the answers to the questions were dictated by some expert and the same was written down by three other students sitting in some other part of the college. These answer booklets were forwarded to the University and an alert IT staff, at the time of data processing, detected the malpractice. As the investigation in the crime is pending, it would not be proper for this Court to delve further into this aspect. It is also made clear that the discussion above is made for the sole purpose of deciding this petition and it is for the Police to decipher the truth untrammelled by any of the observations above.

¶108

I am not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the admitted facts would not disclose that either the petitioners or any other person had committed impersonation. The petitioners may be right in saying that there is no material to suggest that someone else had entered the examination hall and wrote the examination pretending that they were the petitioners. That is not the manner in which the malpractice was committed. The answer booklets were switched and the petitioners were handed over old answer booklets and the invigilators, as well as the officials of the college, turned a blind eye. The real answer booklets were smuggled outside and three individuals whose

¶109

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶110

:19:

¶111

identity has been fixed tentatively wrote the answers as dictated by some expert directly from the authoritative textbook. The word “impersonate” means to attempt to deceive someone by pretending that you are another person. Insofar as the University is concerned, some other person other than the student had written the answers with intent to deceive the University and to secure a pass in the exam by clear manipulation. I am not impressed by the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that only clause 6 and 7 would apply and not clause 9 of the Examination Manual. Clause 6 and 7 are minor violations which provide for a lesser punishment. Clause 6 would apply only when the candidate smuggles in or out or replaces the answer book during or after the exam, with or without the connivance of any staff or arranges to send the question paper out of the hall during the examination. Clause 7 applies when the candidate takes away the answer book outside the examination hall, or intentionally tears off, or otherwise disposes of the answer book or any part thereof. Though it may not be personation in the conventional sense or made punishable under Section 416 of the IPC, the fact remains that somebody else had written the answer scripts for and on behalf of the petitioners.

¶112

As has often been reiterated by the Apex Court, the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly

¶113

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶114

:20:

¶115

and not the decision itself, as such. Critical or independent analysis or appraisal of the materials by the courts exercising powers of judicial review, unlike the case of an appellate court, would neither be permissible nor conducive. Unless the findings arrived at by the University are based on no evidence or are clearly perverse, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same. There is no case for the petitioners that the principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated. I am unable to accept that the order impugned is arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out any grounds for interfering with the orders passed by the Governing Council or by the Vice Chancellor.

¶116

These writ petitions will stand dismissed.

¶117

Sd/-

¶118

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶119

PS/17/4/2022

¶120

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶121

:21:

¶122

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2241/2022

¶123

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶124

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL LETTER DATED 25/03/2021.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 26/05/2021
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY NUMBERED UO NO.45/2021/EXAM GENERAL
DATED 10/05/2021.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
GUIDELINES/REGULATIONS/DISCIPLINARY ACTION/PENALTY
IMPOSED FOR MALPRACTICES/IMPROPER CONDUCT OF
EXAMINATIONS.
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE COVID POSITIVE CERTIFICATE OF
PETITIONER'S FATHER CHANDRAMOHA NAIR DATED
30/402/2021.
Exhibit P6ATRUE COPY OF THE COVID POSITIVE CERTIFICATE OF
PETITIONER'S MOTHER GEETHA DATED 30/04/2021.
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/07/2021
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
10/01/2022.

¶125

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶126

:22:

¶127

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2842/2022

¶128

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶129

`Exhibit`	`P 1` `TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE EXAMINATION` `MANUAL CONTAINING THE STEPS INVOLVED IN THE` `CONDUCT OF UNIVERSITY THEORY EXAMINATIONS AND` `CONDUCT OF EXAMINATIONS`
`Exhibit`	`P 2` `STILL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FROM THE VIDEO` `SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`p 2(a)` `STILL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FROM THE VIDEO` `SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`p 3` `TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10-05-2021 OF THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`p 4` `TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 26-05-2021 FILED BY` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`p 5` `TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF EXAMINATION` `MANUAL CONTAINING CHAPTER XII DEALING WITH` `MALPRACTICES AND MISCONDUCT AND THE PROCEDURE` `TO TACKLE THEM`
`Exhibit`	`p 6` `TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 09-09-2021 IN` `W.P.(C).NO.18463 OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`
`Exhibit`	`p 7` `TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 03-11-2021 IN` `W.A.NO.1379 OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`
`Exhibit`	`p 8` `TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12-11-2021` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT`

¶130

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶131

:23:

¶132

`Exhibit`	`p 9` `TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED` `RESPONDEN`	`OF` `BY` `T`	`REPRESENTATION DATED 17-11-2021` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND`
`Exhibit`	`p 10` `TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED` `RESPONDEN`	`OF` `BY` `T`	`REPRESENTATION DATED 17-11-2021` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND`
`Exhibit`	`p 11` `TRUE COPY` `THE 3RD R`	`OF` `ESPO`	`LETTER DATED 15-01-2022 ISSUED BY` `NDENT TO THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`p11(a)` `TRUE COPY` `ENCLOSED`	`OF` `ALON`	`PROCEEDING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `G WITH EXHIBIT.P11`
`Exhibit`	`p12` `TRUE COPY` `COMMITTEE` `SCIENCES`	`OF` `OF` `AND`	`PROCEEDING OF THE ENQUIRY` `AZEEZIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL` `RESEARCH`

¶133

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶134

:24:

¶135

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4108/2022

¶136

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶137

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UO NO.115/2021/EXAM` `GENERAL DATED 04.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2021 IN` `WPC NO.24264/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE` `COURT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UO NO.45/2021/EXAM` `GENERAL DATED 10.05.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ISSUED TO THE` `PETITIONER WITH REG. NO.120010257 DATED` `01.01.2021.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE` `PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY (REG.` `NO.120010257).`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER` `NO.AIMS/396/2020-21 DATED 11.05.2021 ISSUED` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `09.07.2021SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION` `NO.2021/6531/A1/EX GEN/KUHS DATED 04.08.2021` `PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`

¶138

W.P.(C) Nos.2241, 2842 & 4108/2022

¶139

:25:

¶140

Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CHAPTER
XII OF THE EXAMINATION MANUAL.
Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.09.2021 IN
WPC NO.15935/2021(N) GRANTING PERMISSION TO
FILE A FRESH WRIT PETITION PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.

Midhun Jemsin, v. Kerala University for Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Midhun Jemsin, v. Kerala University for Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aneeshkutty Vs State of Kerala

Sujai Sathian K. Vs Dr. a. Jayatilak

Indira Bhaskaran Vs Aniamma Varghese K

Pranav G. Mohan Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Mr.Nabeel Sajid Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Anu Jayapal Vs State of Kerala