IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5990 of 2008(K)
1. FREDDY JOY, AGED 21 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. PRAVEEN MATHEW, AGED 24,
3. NAIDIN YESUDAS, AGED 21,
4. SIJIL JIMMY, AGED 22,
5. SITHARA.M.S., PULIPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
6. JAREENA JACOB, AGED 22,
7. BISGY THOMAS, AGED 22,
8. JOHN SONY THOMAS,
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
3. BOARD OF STUDIES,
4. JUBILY MISSION COLLEGE OF NURSING,
5. NATIONAL HOSPITAL COLLEGE OF NURSING,
For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP MOHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 5990, 5991, 6031 & 6044 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated: February 20, 2008
JUDGMENT
These are writ petitions filed by the students of B.Sc. Nursing,
who are now studying in the 4th year of their course. They have
not successfully completed all the papers of their 3rd year
examination. It is stated by the petitioners that initially they had
lost in the 3rd year examination and they had appeared for the
supplementary examination. The results of the supplementary
examination were declared in February 2008. Finding that they
were again unsuccessful, they applied for revaluation and results
are awaited. Petitioners submit that their 4th year examination is to
commence on 21.2.2008. According to them, since they are
awaiting the results of the supplementary examination, they should
be permitted to appear in the examination. It is contended that
despite the rigour of the B.Sc. Nursing Revised Syllabus published by
the respondent University, exemption was granted by the Vice
Chancellor by his orders dated 10.4.2006 and 5.10.2006 produced
as Exts.P2 and P1 respectively in WP(C) 5990/08. Petitioners
WP(C) 5990, 5991, 6031 & 6044 of 2008
Page numbers
would contend that they also should be allowed to take part in the
examination.
2. I heard the standing counsel for the University also.
3. It is contended that there is no enabling provision for the
Vice Chancellor to have issued orders in the nature of Exts.P1 and
P2. According to the University, in terms of the regulations framed,
only those who have successfully passed the previous examination
are eligible to appear for the subsequent examinations. It is also
submitted that in the context of Exts.P1 and P2, the matter has been
considered by the Syndicate and the Syndicate has resolved not to
grant any relaxation from the regulations. On this basis the
University opposes the prayer made by the petitioners.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides.
The entitlement of the petitioners will have to be considered in the
context of the regulations which is produced as Ext.P3 in WP(C)
5990/08. The relevant regulations are clauses 8 and 9 which are
extracted below for reference:-
“8. No candidate shall be admitted to the subsequent
WP(C) 5990, 5991, 6031 & 6044 of 2008
Page numbers
higher examination unless he/she has passed the
previous examination. For eg. no candidate shall be
admitted to the II B.Sc. Nursing examination unless
he/she has passed the first year B.Sc. Nursing degree
examination.
9. The candidate who fails in the I B.Sc. Nursing
Examination will be allowed to continue the course only
up to III year. The student will not be permitted to
attend the IV year classes unless he/she passes the I
year B.Sc. Nursing Examination.”
From Regulation 8 it is evident that only those candidates who have
passed the previous examination are entitled to be admitted for
subsequent higher examination. In these cases, it is the admitted
position that the petitioners have not passed the 3rd year
examination fully and and are only waiting for the results of the
revaluation applied for by them of the supplementary examination
they have attended. Therefore applying regulation 8, petitioners
are not entitled to be admitted for subsequent higher examination.
5. In so far as Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued by the Vice
Chancellor are concerned, no regulation is brought to my notice
WP(C) 5990, 5991, 6031 & 6044 of 2008
Page numbers
enabling the Vice Chancellor to grant such relaxation. In any case,
now that the Syndicate has resolved in express terms not to grant
relaxation from regulation 8 extracted above, this court will not be
justified in compelling the University to give relaxation which has
already resolved to be overruled.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the
petitioners are awaiting the results of revaluation applied for by
them, they should be permitted to appear for the examination. A
departure from clause 8 of the regulations for those who are
awaiting the results of the revaluation applied for is not provided in
the regulations. That means the rule making authority did not
want to exempt such students from the regulation. If that be so,
this court will not be justified in passing any order diluting
regulation 8 referred above.
These writ petitions fail and are dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-