IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 2860 of 2008(M)
1. MANOJ R.PRASAD, GOKULAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSIT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/03/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 2860 OF 2008 M
====================
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a B.Tech student in the respondent University,
who has successfully completed the course in August 2005. Though he
was issued Ext.P3 provisional certificate, the other certificates were not
issued and in these circumstances, writ petition has been filed. According
to the petitioner, the reason for the refusal of the University to issue the
certificate is that the petitioner is one of the accused in Crime
No.561/2005 of the Kalamassery Police Station, the FIR of which is Ext.P4.
Petitioner submits that he is innocent of the offences alleged and that he
has been enlarged on bail by Ext.P5. It is also stated that he has made
several representations, but then, the representations so made have not
evoked any response from the University.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University conceding
that the petitioner has successfully completed the course as stated by
him. According to the University, certificate cannot be issued, as the
conduct of the petitioner disentitled him for the certificate. It is stated that
WPC 2860/08
:2 :
since he is an accused in a case of forging marklists and certificates, he
should not be issued the certificate. They are also relying on the
provisions of the Cochin University Students’ (Conduct and Disciplinary)
Code-2005 to justify their stand.
3. I have heard the counsel on either side.
4. In my view though it is true that the petitioner is an accused
as stated by the University, that does not disentitle the petitioner the
certificate of the B.Tech degree that he has successfully completed. Even
going by the Conduct rules relied on, I am not satisfied that said rule has
any relevance as it is meant to enforce discipline in the campus. Since the
petitioner has ceased to be a student, he cannot now be said to be
governed by the Conduct Rules. No other rules enabling the University to
deny certificate to a student for the reason that he is an accused in a
criminal case has been shown to me. Therefore, I do not find any
justification in the stand taken by the University in declining the request of
the petitioner to issue the certificates.
Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the
respondent shall issue degree certificate to the petitioner with respect to
WPC 2860/08
:3 :
the B.Tech Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering, which
the petitioner has completed in August, 2005. This shall be done, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a
copy of this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.
Rp