IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33527 of 2010(M)
1. MIDHULA V.,
... Petitioner
2. RAMSEENA K.N., DO. DO.
3. MUHSINA BEEGAM P.K.,
4. JASEEL MUBARAK,
Vs
1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REP. BY REGISTRAR,
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL KANNUR DENTAL COLLEGE,
3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :09/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 33527 of 2010 M
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are third year BDS students in the
second respondent college.
2. According to the petitioners, the second year
examination ought to have been held in October, 2009, but,
was held only from 05-04-2010. The third year classes
commenced on 01-05-2010. By then, results of the second
year examination were not declared and, therefore, the
college permitted the petitioners to attend the third year
classes. When the results were declared on 14-06-2010,
petitioners 1 to 3 failed in one subject each and the 4th
petitioner failed in two subjects. They appeared for
supplementary examination and results are awaited.
However, they had to discontinue the third year course in
terms of the regulations of the University, which prescribe that
only those who have passed all subjects of the second year
W.P.(C) No.33527/10
: 2 :
can continue their third year course.
3. In this writ petition, what they seek is a direction to
the University to permit them to continue in the third year
classes till the publication of the result of the second year
supplementary examination and also to allow them to appear
for the third year examination if they come out successful in
the second year supplementary examination. Admittedly,
regulations framed by the Dental Council of India and the
University require that only such students who pass all the
subjects of the second year, can continue to attend the
classes of the third year. In this case, admittedly, petitioners
do not satisfy these conditions. If that be so, petitioners can
neither attend the classes nor can they be permitted to
appear in the examination of the third year.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on paragraph
3 of Ext.P2 judgment. Reading of this judgment shows that
such a direction, which is inconsistent to the regulations of the
University, was issued taking note of the peculiar
W.P.(C) No.33527/10
: 3 :
circumstance that on account of the delay on the part of the
University in declaring the results, the students were
permitted to continue to attend the classes. Such a situation
does not exist here. Therefore, I am not persuaded to direct
the University to permit the students to continue to attend the
classes or to appear for the third year examination, as the
petitioners do not satisfy the conditions laid down in the
regulations. Having regard to the above, I am also not
inclined to direct consideration of the representation made by
the petitioners.
Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge