High Court Kerala High Court

Manmohan.C.B vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Manmohan.C.B vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 384 of 2009(U)


1. MANMOHAN.C.B, S/O. BABU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,

3. THE GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.J.LATHEESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :06/01/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                 -------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No.384 of 2009
            ---------------------------------
            Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner wants to appear for the 10th semester LLB

Examination. However, the University has not permitted him to

appear for the Examination for the reason that he has not cleared

one of the papers of the 6th semester Examination.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has

already appeared for the Supplementary Examination held in

October 2008 and that the University has not announced the results

so far. It is stated that in the meanwhile the 10th semester

Examination is to commence on 08/01/2009 and therefore pending

announcement of the Supplementary Examination results he should

be permitted to appear for the said Examination.

3. In terms of the regulations of the University, if a student

does not clear the previous semesters, which in this case is the 6th

semester, he will not be permitted to appear in the 10th semester

Examination. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner has appeared for

the Supplementary Examination, will not entitle the petitioner to

WP(C) No.384/2009
-2-

appear for the Examination ignoring the regulations framed by the

University.

4. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner has already

appeared for the Supplementary Examination, I direct the University

to finalise the valuation and declare the result as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within two months. But, that does not mean

that the petitioner can be permitted to appear for the Examination

in relaxation of the regulations framed by the University. Further

this issue has already been decided by this Court in the judgment in

WP(C) No.36362/2008.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg