Rajani.K vs Sree Sankaracharya University Of on 14 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17787 of 2008(P)


1. RAJANI.K, AGED 23, D/O. RAJAN.K.K,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA

3. THE CAMPUS DIRECTOR,

4. THE TEACHER IN CHARGE OF EXAMINATIONS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,SANKARACHA.UTY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :14/07/2008

 O R D E R
                         S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                ------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No.17787 OF 2008
              ----------------------------------------
                Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a student of M.A. Literature (Sanskrit). The

petitioner appeared for the 1st Semester examination. But the

results of the 1st Semester examination of the petitioner were not

declared, because of certain technical reasons, till 28.3.08.

However, the petitioner was allowed to continue studies in the 2nd

Semester and the petitioner attended classes regularly. According

to the petitioner, as is evident from Ext.P2, the petitioner has the

required attendance in the 2nd Semester necessary for appearing

for the 2nd Semester examination. She wrote the 2nd Semester

examination also. Subsequently, the University, by Ext.P4 order,

informed the College that the petitioner does not have the

minimum attendance for writing the 2nd Semester examination,

apparently on the basis that he could have attended classes in

the 2nd semester only after declaration of result of the 1st

Semester examination on 28.3.2008. The petitioner’s contention

2

is that it was not because of any fault on the part of the

petitioner that this difficulties arose, but only because of the

delay of the University in declaring the results of her 1st

Semester examination. She would further submit that in so far

as she had attended the classes and obtained required

attendance for the 2nd Semester, now that the admission has

been regularised, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of

the attendance she has obtained validly as permitted by the

authorities. The petitioner therefore seeks the following

reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash Exhibit P4
Order as illegal and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to permit the petitioners to attend the 3rd
semester classes.

iii. Declare that petitioner shall not be punished
for the alleged technical reasons alleged by the
University and may declare that petitioner was eligible to
attend the 2nd semester classes and examination.

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd
respondent to pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P5, as
per law, with an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner, without any further delay.”

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University

submits that now that the petitioner’s admission has been

3

regularised, she can have the benefits of the 2nd Semester

examination also and continue the studies. This submission is

recorded and the writ petition is closed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd