IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9281 of 2009(E)
1. DR.MANJU.G.S
... Petitioner
2. DR.R.ASHA, SRI DURG PRASANNA, GOKUL
3. DR.MRIDULA GOPINATHAN
4. DR.N.PADMASUGANYA
5. DR.N.K.JAYANTHI
6. DR.DR.ASHAMOL K.N,
7. DR.SINDHU VENIGOPAL, PUTHIYA VALAPPIL
8. DR,THRUSALA R.I, T.C.20/173 (1)
9. DR.NISHA A.N,
10. DR.ANJU A.JOHN
11. DR.SREEREKHA .S
12. DR.SALEENA A,
13. DR.LAKSHMI PRIYA .T
14. DR.LIMA.H.L.
15. DR.LALI.I.S,
16. DR.SAJEEV.V
17. DR.SOPHY R.DAS
18. DR.SMITHA K.MOHAN
19. DR.PRADEEP KUMAR
20. DR.ARIHARAN .S
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
3. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHY
4. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
5. THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.NAVEEN.T
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/04/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.9281 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are the 2nd year students of Post
Graduation in M.D (Hom) Homeopathic Pharmacy and M.D
(Hom) Practice of Medicine in Homeopathic Medical
College, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. In this writ petition the prayer sought for is a
direction to the respondents to take steps for conducting
the 2nd year examination and publish the results. The
Standing Counsel for the University on instructions submit
that for conducting the examination as demanded by the
petitioners, a panel of approved guides and examiners has
to be prepared. It is stated that the 5th respondent has
already forwarded a panel to them and that the same has
been forwarded to the 3rd respondent for their approval. It
is stated that, once the 3rd respondent conveys their
WP(c).No.9281/09 2
approval of the panel, which is already forwarded to them, the
University will fix a date for submission of thesis and schedule
for the examination without any further delay in the matter.
3. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners also do not
dispute the requirement of the approval of the panel by the 3rd
respondent. Since the approval of the panel by the 3rd
respondent is still awaited, I feel at this state the only order
that can be passed is to direct the 3rd respondent to consider
the panel forwarded by the University and decide as to
whether the same can be approved or not. If the decision
taken is to approve the panel, once it is communicated so
taken, the University shall fix a date for submission of the
theses and thereafter schedule the examination also.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing
that the 3rd respondent shall consider the panel of guides and
examiners forwarded by the University and decide as to
whether the same can be approved or not. A decision in this
behalf shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and at any
WP(c).No.9281/09 3
rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of
the judgment and the same shall immediately communicated
to the University. If the decision of the 3rd respondent is one
approving the panel, the University shall fix the date for
submission of thesis and schedule the examination for the
students.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before
the 3rd respondent for compliance.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.9281/09 4