Abin Itty Thomas vs Apj Abdul Kalam Technological ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9878 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 6962 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          ABIN ITTY THOMAS, AGED 23 YEARS,
          S/O.THOMAS, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, PULICKALKAVALA P.O,
          VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 515,
          REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER V.I. THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS,
          VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, PULICKALKAVALA P.O, VAZHOOR,
          KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 515.

          BY ADVS.B.PRAMOD
          NAMITHA JYOTHISH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
          CET CAMPUS, ALATHARA ROAD, AMBADY NAGAR,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695016,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

    2     THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, APJ ABDUL KALAM
          TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, ALATHARA ROAD,
          AMBADY NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695016.

    3     COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CHENGANNUR,
          ENGINEERING COLLEGE ROAD, OPP. FEDERAL BANK, SH 1,
          CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121, INDIA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

          BY ADVS.SHRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM
          TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 6962 OF 2022
                                  -2-

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he joined the 3rd

respondent - College, which is affiliated to the

1st respondent - APJ Abdul Kalam Technological

University ('University', for short), for B.Tech

(Computer Science) Course in the year 2015.

2. The petitioner asserts that he had passed

the examinations - which is manifest from Exts.P2,

P3 and P4; but that, subsequently, an information

was published by the University in their Website

that he had been declared to have "failed". He

asserts that this is illegal and unlawful and

that, therefore, he took up the matter before the

University, through Exts.P5 and P6; but that it

has been rejected through Ext.P7, merely saying

that original results were "wrongly published",

thus directing him to attend a fresh examination

under the "2015 Scheme", on 02.08.2021.

3. The petitioner submits that he did not WP(C) NO. 6962 OF 2022

attend the aforesaid examination, because Ext.P7

is egregiously improper and that, therefore, he

has been constrained to approach this Court

through this writ petition.

4. Sri.B.Pramod - learned counsel for the

petitioner, explained that action of the

University, in having reversed the results of his

client nearly after three years, is not merely

illegal, but also contrary to the Statutory

Scheme; and hence that his client decided not to

take the fresh examination scheduled on

02.08.2021, as was informed to him through Ext.P7.

He argued that his client has only acted

legitimately, because once he had been declared to

have passed the examination, there was no reason

for him to have written it again.

5. Sri.B.Pramod concluded his submissions

saying that, in any event, Ext.P7 cannot find

favour in law, because no reason has been stated WP(C) NO. 6962 OF 2022

therein as to how and in what manner the

University had found that the earlier results were

"wrong"; and that in the absence of any enquiry

being conducted with respect to it, the stand of

the University, as reflected in Ext.P7, is illegal

and unlawful. He thus prayed that this writ

petition be allowed.

6. I must record upfront that, on hearing

Sri.B.Pramod as afore on 26.07.2022, when this

matter was earlier listed, I had directed the

University to produce the answer script of the

petitioner, so as to enable him to verify whether

there were any ex facie errors in it. The said

answer paper has been today produced by Sri.Elvin

Peter - learned Standing Counsel for the

University, and I gave an opportunity to the

petitioner, who was present in person, to see the

same.

7. Sri.B.Pramod - learned counsel for the WP(C) NO. 6962 OF 2022

petitioner, submitted that, even after his client

verified his answer script, he has not been able

to see how he has been declared to have failed. He

submitted that, therefore, unless the University

convinces his client appositely, through proper

documents and inputs, Ext.P7 cannot be found to be

legally correct; and that the mere factum that he

did not attend the examination, as offered

therein, cannot be held against him.

8. Sri.Elvin Peter - learned Standing Counsel

for the University, on the other hand, submitted

that the answer script in question is of the 1 st

Semester and that petitioner was informed of the

change in the results at least in November 2019;

but that he had chosen to approach this Court only

on 23.11.2021. He submitted that the laches on the

part of the petitioner is all the more evident

because Ext.P7 was issued to him as early as on

14.08.2020, giving him an opportunity to write the WP(C) NO. 6962 OF 2022

examination again under the "2015 Scheme" on

02.08.2021. He argued that since the petitioner

does not explain why he waited for more than 11/2

years to approach this Court, this writ petition

is not maintainable; and thus prayed that it be

dismissed.

9. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it

is evident that, on one hand, the petitioner says

that University has not informed him any reason as

to why his results had been modified; while, the

University, on the other, says that it is based on

cogent and reliable materials.

10. That apart, even if it is established that

the petitioner's results were "wrongly published",

the University must also consider whether he can

be allowed to write the examinations, de hors

Ext.P7, under the "2015 Scheme".

11. Of course, the delay of the petitioner in

having approached this Court, after receiving WP(C) NO. 6962 OF 2022

Ext.P7 on 14.08.2020, has not been properly

explained; but I am of the view that the

requisites of substantial justice would

necessitate consideration as above by the

University.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition with

the following directions:

(a) The competent Authority of the University

will immediately hear the petitioner or his father

- who is stated to be the authorized

representative, and make available to him all the

materials - based on which his results were found

to have been "wrongly published"; thus culminating

in an appropriate order and necessary action

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not

later than two months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment.

(b) If, through the afore exercise, it is

found that the petitioner's results were validly WP(C) NO. 6962 OF 2022

modified, then the University will also decide

whether he can be given another chance of writing

the examination under the "2015 Scheme", which

shall be done without any avoidable delay

thereafter.

(c) If, on the contrary, the enquiry as afore

is to conclude that the petitioner's results were

wrongly modified, then his earlier results -

indicated by Exts.P2, P3 and P4 - would stand

restored and proceedings for this shall be issued

by the University immediately thereafter.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 6962 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6962/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AUTHORIZED SENT BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH EMAIL DATED 16.11.2021.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED RESULT OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHER STUDENTS.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SEMESTER GRADE CARD GENERATED ON 07.01.2018 SHOWING THE PETITIONER AS HAVING PASSED THE SAID EXAMINATION.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SEMESTER GRADE CARD GENERATED ON 26.02.2018.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL DATED 20.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL DATED 29.06.2021.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL DATED 25.07.2021.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE