IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 386 of 2010(W)
1. VISHNU V.NAIR, AGED 23, S/O. K.VINOD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
4. DR.VIJAYALAKSHMI,
5. DR.VALLIAMMA,
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :02/02/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 386 of 2010-W
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is a student of 1st year MBBS degree course at
Pariyaram Medical College, is seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3
to conduct a re-examination for his clinical and practical examinations in
the subjects Physiology and Biochemistry.
2. The examination was conducted in August, 2009 and result was
published on 16.12.2009 which showed that the petitioner failed in clinical
and practical examinations in the above two subjects. According to the
petitioner, he failed in the examination in the light of the harassment meted
out by respondents 4 and 5, viz. the Heads of Departments of Physiology
and Biochemistry. Various circumstances have been pointed out in support
of the plea. Exts.P2 and P3 are the complaints filed before the Controller of
Examinations and the Principal of the Medical College. Exts.P4 and P5 are
the complaints raised before respondents 2 and 3 in the matter.
3. Respondents 3 to 5 have filed detailed counter affidavits opposing
the prayers of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the allegation of
harassment is not correct. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also.
wpc386 /2010 2
4. In fact, a re-examination can be conducted only if any
irregularities are reflected in the marks assigned to the petitioner. This is a
matter entirely for the authorities of the University to consider. In these
proceedings, as the factual aspects have been disputed by various parties,
this Court cannot enter into any findings on such disputed questions of fact.
Although learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the harassment is
evident from the proceedings, it is stoutly denied by learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, I am relegating the petitioner
to the remedy to approach the University itself in the matter.
5. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to
consider Exts.P2 and P4 representations and to take a final decision after
conducting due enquiry and after hearing the petitioner and respondents 3
to 5, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. All opportunities should be given to the various parties to submit
their statements and to produce evidence in the matter.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/