IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20423 of 2009(W)
1. SULFIKAR ALI.P.T., AGED 26 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
3. THE SYNDICATE OF THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
4. THE PRINCIPAL, CENTURY INTERNATIONAL
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :02/12/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).20423/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned standing
counsel appearing for the Kannur University.
2. The petitioner appeared for the Final BDS Part-I
Degree Examination conducted by the Kannur University in
September 2008. On the ground that the answers to two
questions in the subject ‘Orthodontics’ Section A are similar to
that in the text book of Orthodontics by Balaji, the Controller of
Examinations issued Ext.P2 memo dated 20.11.2008 calling
upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be
taken against him for malpractice in the examination. On
receipt of the said memo, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply
dated 9.12.2008 denying the said allegation. This writ petition
was thereafter filed challenging Ext.P2 and seeking a writ in the
nature of mandamus to the respondents to publish the result of
the Final BDS examination. The petitioner contends that the
mere similarity in the answers to the contents of the text book
of Orthodontics cannot be a ground to hold that he had
W.P.(C).20423/09
2
committed malpractice in the examination and that in the
absence of an allegation that he had copied from a book or
notes or from other answer scripts, the respondents are not
entitled to take action against him for malpractice in the
examination.
3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit.
It is stated that after enquiry by a committee consisting of three
experts, a report was submitted wherein the committee had
come to the conclusion that no punitive action should be taken
against the candidate. It is also stated that the report of the
enquiry committee was placed before the Standing Committee
of the Syndicate which resolved to cancel the examination of the
petitioner and other candidates. It is also stated that the
Standing Committee had also resolved to recommend to the
Syndicate to take appropriate action against the College. The
second respondent has further stated that the recommendation
was approved by the Pro Vice Chancellor exercising the powers
of the Vice Chancellor and that the appearance of the candidate
including the petitioner in the final BDS Part-I examination
stands cancelled.
4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the
W.P.(C).20423/09
3
files were made available. The files disclose that the Vice
Chancellor of the University has ordered that the report and
the connected papers should be placed before the Syndicate for
consideration and that the Syndicate is yet to take a decision in
the matter. As per Statute 3(xxiii) of Chapter VII of the Kannur
University First Statutes, 1998, the Syndicate of the University
is the body competent to cancel the examination taken by a
candidate and to debar him/her from appearing at the
University examination for one or more years. The procedure to
be followed before cancelling the appearance in the examination
and for debarring the candidate from appearing in the
examination for a particular period is also prescribed in the
First Statutes. Since the Syndicate of the University is yet to
take a decision in the matter, I am of the opinion that it would
be premature to this Court to go into the rival contentions at
this stage.
I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction
to the respondents to pass final orders in the matter after
complying with the provisions in the Statute 3(xxiii) of Chapter
VII of the Kannur University First Statutes, 1998 and after
affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being
W.P.(C).20423/09
4
heard. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within two
months from today. Depending on the decision taken by the
Syndicate, the result of the petitioner shall be published. The
contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge
mrcs