Arjun A vs The University Of Calicut
2022 Latest Caselaw 9345 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 24993 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          ARJUN A
          AGED 21 YEARS
          S/O.ARUN V, AGED 21 YEARS, 'AVENUES', BEHIND CIVIL
          STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
          BY ADVS.
          JACOB SEBASTIAN
          K.V.WINSTON
          ANU JACOB


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
          REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, TENHIPALAM, CALICUT
          UNIVERSITY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673635
    2     THE JOINT CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS
          UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, CALICUT
          UNIVERSITY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673635
    3     THE GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE
          PERADIKUNNU, NAGARIPURAM, PATHIRIPALA, PALAKKAD
          DISTRICT, PIN-678642, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
          SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN - SC
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24993 OF 2022             2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is undergoing the B.Arch. Course in the 3rd

respondent - College, has approached this Court seeking that the

Calicut University - to which said College is affiliated - be directed to

publish the results of the make-up test/ supplementary jury for the

first and second semester Examinations held on 12th July, 2022, within

a time frame to be fixed by this court.

2. The petitioner adscititiously prays that the 2nd respondent -

Joint Controller of Examinations of the University be directed to take

up Exts.P2 and P4 requests made by the College and himself

respectively, and to issue orders thereon without any further delay,

since otherwise, his entire future would be put to jeopardy because he

will be forced to redo the Course from the first semester onwards. He

says that this will be extremely unfair and inequitable since, as he has

already explained in Ext.P4, he was incapacitated from appearing

before the internal jury on account of medical reasons.

3. The afore request of Sri.Jacob Sebastian - learned counsel for

the petitioner, was answered by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned

Standing Counsel for the University, saying that though Ext.P2 has

been received by his client, Ext.P4 has not been. He added that Ext.P2

has already been forwarded by the University to the relevant

department for necessary action.

4. When I examine and go through the documents on record,

particularly Exts.P2 and P4, it is evident that the former among them

has been issued by the College to the Joint Controller of Examinations

of the University, seeking its approval for conducting a special jury/re-

jury as a 'make-up chance' in the third semester. A further request

had been made by the petitioner through Ext.P4 relating to the first

and second semesters. Since the University says that Ext.P2 has been

received by them, I am certain that they are now obligated to answer

it appropriately without any further delay, lest the petitioner be put to

further prejudice.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct

the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P2, as also the copy of Ext.P4 from

the pleadings of this case; and dispose of the same, adverting to

Ext.P3, as also to any other document that the petitioner or the

College may present before him, after affording them an opportunity

of being heard for such purpose; thus culminating in an appropriate

order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but

not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

To obtain an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I

direct the petitioner and the competent official of the College to

appear before the 2nd respondent at 11.00 a.m. on 17.08.2022; on

which day, said Authority will either hear them, or fix another

convenient date for such purpose and complete proceedings as afore

ordered, within the time frame fixed.

After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.Jacob Sebastian

pointed out that, in Ext.P4, the requests of the petitioner are with

respect to the 'make-up tests' for the first and second semesters. He

explained that because the College did not conduct the said 'make-up'

tests within the time frame prescribed, his client has been denied the

said opportunity and that the failure of the College to do so, has now

put him to extreme prejudice.

As I have said above, the requests, both in Exts.P2 and P4, will

have to be considered by the 2nd respondent appropriately. Since it is

pointed out that Ext.P2 request of the College relates to the third

semester and Ext.P4 request of the petitioner relates to the first and

second semesters, certainly, the 2nd respondent will have to consider

both these aspects in its proper perspective, notwithstanding the

contention that it did not receive the latter.

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is

completed and the resultant orders communicated to the petitioner,

he will be allowed to continue in the semester which he is presently

pursuing and any further decision will be taken only on the terms of

the resultant decision.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/10.8

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24993/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF COURSE REGULATIONS FOR B.ARCH DEGREE COURSE IN THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.

Exhibit-P2          A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
                    18.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
                    TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P3          A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
                    DATED 04.07.2022.
Exhibit-P4          A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
                    29.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
                    BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.