High Court Kerala High Court

Alex.L.Abraham vs Saintgits College Of Engineering on 29 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Alex.L.Abraham vs Saintgits College Of Engineering on 29 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21549 of 2010(P)


1. ALEX.L.ABRAHAM,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. HEMANTH.S., KOCHUKARAKKATTU HOUSE,
3. KOSHY M.SAM, MAMKOYIKKAL HOUSE,
4. JAISON GEORGE VARGHESE,
5. MARTIN AUGUSTINE, S/O.C.V.AUGUSTINE
6. DANNY JOSEPH VARKEY,

                        Vs



1. SAINTGITS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PRINCIPAL, SAINTGITS COLLEGE

3. M.G.UNIVERSITY, SURYA KALADY HILLS,

4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS

5. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

                For Respondent  :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :29/07/2010

 O R D E R
                       S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                  ------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) No.21549 OF 2010
                  -------------------------------
             Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010

                       J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are the students of the first respondent

College. On disciplinary grounds they were suspended. It

appears that they had some shortage of attendance for writing

the examination. The petitioners were not permitted to write the

examination on 6.5.2010, although they had written the first

paper on 3.5.2010, on the ground that the University had not

condoned the shortage of attendance. But according to the

petitioners, they came to understand that the application for

condonation of shortage of attendance was not forwarded by the

Principal. Therefore, the petitioners submitted a representation

to the Vice Chancellor. The next semester classes started from

23.6.2010. Although the petitioners met the Principal and

submitted a representation for permitting them to attend the

next semester classes, in the light of the pendency of the

application for condonation of shortage of attendance before the

W.P.(c)No.21549/10 2

University, the Principal did not permit them to attend the

classes. It is under the above circumstances, they have filed

this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“(I) call for the records leading to the issuance of
Ext.P1 – P14 and
(II) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ
order/direction directing the respondents 1 & 2 to
send back the condonation application to the
university without any further delay after taking
necessary decision for condoning the shortage of
attendance as that of other students whose
condonation applications were positively considered.
(III) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders on
the condonation applications of the petitioners which
were returned by the University to the 1st respondent
college for clarification by taking appropriate steps
without any further delay.

(IV) Direct the respondents 2,3 & 5 to permit the
petitioners provisionally to attend the next semester
classes which have already started from 23.06.2010
onwards without any further delay pending disposal of
the Original Writ Petition”.

2. The University has taken the stand that the

application for condonation of shortage of attendance received

from the Principal was returned to the Principal, since it was

not in order. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first

respondent, wherein he has taken the stand that the

application for condonation of shortage of attendance has been

forwarded to the Controller of Examinations with all materials

required for considering the same. According to the first

respondent, all information required for the purpose are

W.P.(c)No.21549/10 3

contained in Ext.R1(i) dated 1.7.2010 forwarded to the

Controller of Examinations.

3. I have heard the parties. In so afar as the matter

involves future of some students, despite their alleged

misdoings, I think that all parties should take a lenient attitude

towards them, in so far as the shortage of attendance is very

low as seen from Ext.R1(i).

In the above circumstances, the fifth respondent is

directed to consider the request of the petitioners for

condonation of shortage of attendance on the basis of Ext.R1

(i) considering the sentiments expressed by this court as

above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

acd

W.P.(c)No.21549/10 4

W.P.(c)No.21549/10 5