IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1160 of 2010()
1. ABDUL RASHEED K.M., AGED 54 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
... Respondent
2. THE SYNDICATE REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
R.P.No.1160 OF 2010
IN
W.P.(C) NO. 32017 OF 2010
=====================
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011
O R D E R
The petitioner is the Registrar of the Kannur University. He
filed the writ petition complaining that despite having submitted
his thesis titled “Important Principles in Spices with special
reference to Nutmeg” as early as on 28/10/2009, inordinate delay
has been caused by the University in dealing with his thesis and
awarding Doctorate. The University entered appearance, filed its
counter affidavit and after hearing both sides, by judgment dated
29th of November, 2010, the writ petition was disposed of. In the
judgment, taking note of the further process to be completed by
the University, it was directed that the University shall take steps
for completing the process and that the entire process should be
completed at any rate within 5 months of production of a copy of
this judgment. It is seeking review of the said judgment to get the
period fixed for finalising the proceedings, this review petition is
filed.
2. According to the review petitioner, processing of the
R.P.No.1160 OF 2010
IN
W.P.(C) NO. 32017 OF 2010
:2 :
thesis is over as early as on 2/11/2009 and that the thesis has
been found to be in order. It is stated that the panel of
adjudicators are also ready and that all that is required is to sent
the thesis for evaluation, and on getting the report, to place the
matter for open presentation, and thereafter, take a final decision
on the recommendation of the adjudicators. It is contended that
this whole process will take only less than a month, and therefore,
the period of five months specified by this Court is unduly long. It
is on this premise, the review is sought essentially for getting the
time fixed by this court reduced.
3. According to the counsel for the University, on receipt
of the judgment, further steps have been taken and that the
petitioner has been issued Annexure R1(c) memo dated
23/12/2010 requiring the petitioner to rectify the inadequacies
mentioned therein. It is stated that once the petitioner rectifies
the inadequacies, further action will be initiated by the University
for complying with the judgment. It is also stated that, based on
the suggestions made by the research guide of the petitioner, the
Syndicate will have to choose the adjudicators and that the thesis
R.P.No.1160 OF 2010
IN
W.P.(C) NO. 32017 OF 2010
:3 :
will be forwarded to the adjudicators to assess the same, which is
a time consuming affair. It is stated that once the adjudicators
submit their report, open defence will have to be scheduled and
that thereafter the matter will have to be placed again before the
Syndicate for considering the matter in the light of the report of
the adjudicators and the report on the open defence of the
petitioner. It is stated that, thereafter only the Syndicate will take
a final decision on the question of awarding Doctorate to the
petitioner. It is stated that these proceedings cannot be
completed in the manner as indicated by the petitioner.
4. First of all, power of review is invoked only in a case
where an error apparent on the face of it has been made out. On
facts, I am not satisfied that the pleadings raised by the petitioner
makes out a case for review. Still, I have examined the grievance
of the petitioner in the light of the pleadings and the submissions
made. It is true that it is the contention of the petitioner that, in
several other cases, the thesis submitted by candidates like the
petitioner were considered by the University and Doctorate has
been awarded within much shorter time than what has already
R.P.No.1160 OF 2010
IN
W.P.(C) NO. 32017 OF 2010
:4 :
been taken in the case of the petitioner. Still fact remains that as
atpresent, even the adjudicators have not been chosen by the
Syndicate. Further, procedure indicated as above are time
consuming, and therefore, I do not think that the time of five
months specified, of which one month has already elapsed, is
inordinately long and require to be modified in a review petition.
5. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the relief as
sought for.
Review petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp