Dr.Anu Anna Jacob vs Cochin University Of Science And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6010 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.4375 OF 2021(V)


PETITIONER:

               DR.ANU ANNA JACOB
               AGED 33 YEARS
               D/O. DR. JACOB VARGHESE, KARAKKAT BETHEL,
               JAWAN CROSS ROAD, AIMS P.O,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 024.

               BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO

RESPONDENTS:

      1        COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
               REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN
               UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY-682
               022.

      2        CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,
               COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SCHOOL
               OF LEGAL STUDIES, KALAMASSERY-682 022

      3        THE DIRECTOR,
               SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE
               AND TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY-682 022.

      4        ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN,
               LECTURER, LAW DEPARTMENT, SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES,
               COCHIN UNIVERSITY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
               KALAMASSERY-682 022



               SRI. S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY - SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4375 OF 2021                     2

                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she is pursuing

legal studies in the evening course with the

Cochin University of Science and Technology

(CUSAT) and that she has fared well in all

the semester examinations conducted by the

University until now. She says that the 3rd

semester examinations are scheduled to

commence on 24.02.2021, as per Ext.P7

notification, but that she has been told that

she will not be allowed to write the same,

since she does not have the requisite

attendance in one of the subjects.

2. The petitioner asserts that it is

evident, even from Ext.P5, that she has

sufficient attendance in all other subjects,

except one and she alleges this is because

the 4th respondent has illegally reduced it to

58%, against 90% which is her real

percentage. The petitioner submits that, she

has, therefore, preferred Ext.P6 complaint

before the 3rd respondent - Director of

School of Legal Studies, CUSAT and prays that

same be directed to be taken up and disposed

of within a time frame to be fixed by this

Court.

3. The petitioner, through her learned

counsel, Shri.K.C.Eldho, also prays that she

be allowed to write the examination

commencing on 24.02.2021, contending that

otherwise, she would be irreparably

prejudiced.

4. In response to the afore submissions

of the petitioner, the learned Standing

Counsel for CUSAT, Shri.S.P.Aravindakshan

Pillai, submitted that if the petitioner only

requires Ext.P6 complaint to be taken up and

disposed of within a time frame, there is no

legal impediment in doing so and that his

client will not stand in the way of this

Court passing orders to such effect. He,

however, prayed that this Court may not make

any affirmative declarations as regards the

attendance of the petitioner and leave it to

the 3rd respondent to take a decision thereon

as per law.

5. As regards the examination beginning

on 24.2.2021, Shri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai,

submitted that every effort will be taken to

dispose of Ext.P6 at the earliest, but that

if this Court is so inclined, the petitioner

may be allowed to write the said examinations

provisionally, subject to the decision to be

taken by the 3rd respondent on Ext.P6. He

prayed that this writ petition be ordered

only on such terms.

           6.    When           I         consider           the      afore

      submissions,         it       is    without      doubt       that   the

      question         whether                the     petitioner          has

sufficient attendance or otherwise, is not

something that this Court can speak about

affirmatively at this stage; and the 3rd

respondent will have to certainly consider

Ext.P6 and take an appropriate decision

thereon as per law.

7. As regards the examinations

commencing on 24.2.2021, I certainly find

favour with the request of the petitioner,

that she be allowed to write the same

provisionally, since otherwise if, after the

3rd respondent consideres Ext.P6 and it is

found that she has sufficient attendance, she

would be irreparably prejudiced.

In the afore circumstances, I order this

writ petition and direct the 3rd respondent to

take up Ext.P6 complaint of the petitioner

and dispose it of, after affording her an

opportunity of being heard - either

physically or through video conferencing -

thus culminating in an appropriate order

thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but

not later than one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner will be

allowed to write the examinations commencing

on 24.2.2021 provisionally, which will be

subject to the decision to be taken by the 3rd

respondent on Ext.P6.

After I dictated this part of the

judgment, Shri.K.C.Eldho, submitted that his

client has also sought that respondents 1 to

3 be directed to issue apposite guidelines

and rules in connection with the manner in

which attendance should be taken during the

online classes and that it is because there

are no such guidelines, that the controversy

in question has arisen.

I certainly find some cause for the

petitioner in this regard and therefore,

further direct respondents 1 to 3 to

immediately consider this issue and to pass

appropriate guidelines/criteria as a general

rule, so that in future, no student will have

any cause or complaint in this regard.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/19.2.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS LIST OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE FIRST SEMESTER.

      EXHIBIT P2        NIL

      EXHIBIT P2 A      A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS LIST

SHOWING THE INTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE SUBJECT JURISPRUDENCE.

EXHIBIT P2B A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS LIST SHOWING THE INTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE SUBJECT INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

EXHIBIT P2C A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS LIST SHOWING THE INTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE SUBJECT LAW OF THE SEA.

EXHIBIT P2D A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS LIST SHOWING THE INTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE SUBJECT DRAFTING PLEADING THAN THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.

EXHIBIT P2C A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS LIST SHOWING THE INTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE SUBJECT LAW OF THE SEA.

EXHIBIT P2D A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS LIST SHOWING THE INTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE SUBJECT DRAFTING PLEADING THAN THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNAL EVALUATION MARKS GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN THE SUBJECT INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION OF THE PETITIONER AND THE REPLY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT UPLOADED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS REGARDS THE INTERNAL ASSESSMENT AND ATTENDANCE ON 04.02.2021 IN GOOGLE CLASS ROOM.

SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTOR DATED 4.2.2021.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.