High Court Kerala High Court

Vibin.K. vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 14 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Vibin.K. vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 14 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 356 of 2011(T)


1. VIBIN.K., S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.ANANDAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :14/01/2011

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ================
                     W.P.(C) NO. 356 OF 2011
                 =====================

           Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a student, who was enrolled with the off campus

center of Mahatma Gandhi University-M/s Sreenikethan College,

Chathannoor. The third year examination commenced on

20/4/2010. On 26/4/2010, while the petitioner was writing the 4th

paper, at about 1.00 p.m., officials of the University inspected the

examination hall, seized the answer papers and the hall ticket

from the petitioner. Thereafter, he was informed that he was

debarred. According to the petitioner, no show cause notice or

other proceedings have been issued and

therefore the proceedings initiated by the University are illegal. It

is with this allegation, the writ petition is filed.

2. Standing counsel appearing for the University submits

that during the 3rd year examination, University officials inspected

the examination hall of off the campus center in question and it

was found that with the active involvement of the authorities of

the off campus, students were indulging in massive copying. It is

stated that, it was therefore that, the answer papers were seized

WPC No. 356/11
:2 :

and proceedings have been initiated not only against the off

campus center, but also against the students. Thus the case of

the University is that there was mass copying with the

involvement of the off campus center itself. It is therefore stated

that the University is in the process of issuing notice to the center

and also the students.

3. Now that such proceedings have been initiated, all that

is required is that, the University should initiate proceedings,

issue notice to the students and complete the proceedings with

opportunity of hearing to them. This shall be done at any rate

within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp