IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 20138 of 2007(V)
1. SRIVATSON K.R., S/O.K.V.RAMABHADRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. VICE CHANCELLOR,
3. REGISTRAR,
4. PRINCIPAL, D.C.SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.RAMABHADRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/07/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.20138 OF 2007
------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner applied for admission to the MBA Course of the 1st
respondent University in the 4th respondent’s College. As per the
prospectus issued inviting applications for admission, it was made clear
that those who are appearing for the final year examination that year
of the qualifying course also may apply subject to the production of the
mark list before the last date for admission. Accordingly, the
petitioner secured admission to the 4th respondent’s College. He
completed the 1st semester and when he was about to write the
examination he was told that he cannot writ the examination because
he had not passed the qualifying examination before the last date fixed
for admission namely, 31.10.2006. The petitioner submits that this
happened only because of the negligence on the part of the Calicut
University in not taking the supplementary for the Vth semester of the
qualifying examination in time. The petitioner would submit that as
and when the supplementary examination was conducted he wrote it
and passed the same pursuant to which he produced the consolidated
W.P.(c)No.20138/07 2
mark list also. However, the University takes a stand that the
petitioner has not passed qualifying examination on the last date
fixed for admission and therefore he was not validly admitted. The
petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs.
" i) issue writ of certiorari quashing
Exhibit P10 order.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
writ, direction or order directing the respondent 1
to 3 to register the petitioner’s name on the roll of
admission for MBA 2006-2008 (Batch) of 1st
respondent University, accepting Exhibit P1 to
Exhibit P3 certificates.
iii) Direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to
place Exhibit P12 representation before Syndicate
of M.G. University at the earliest session of the
Syndicate to consider necessary relaxation of rigid
procedure so far adopted in denying admission to
the petitioner in the 1st respondent University.
And
iv) to issue such other reliefs as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. However, for the present the petitioner would be
satisfied with a direction to the Vice Chancellor to consider and pass
orders on Ext.P12 expeditiously.
3. The learned standing counsel for the University submits
that since Ext.P10 order has been passed by the Vice Chancellor
regarding the petitioner’s entitlement, it is only appropriate that the
Syndicate considers Ext.P12. Accordingly, there would be a
W.P.(c)No.20138/07 3
direction to the Syndicate of the University to consider Ext.P12 in its
next meeting and pass appropriate orders thereon.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.20138/07 4