Kerala High Court
Goutham Chandrasekhar vs Vice- Chancellor on 9 June, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
W.A.No.995 of 2025
:1:
2025:KER:37372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025/19TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 995 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.33353 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIOENRS
1 GOUTHAM CHANDRASEKHAR
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O MANOJ VASU, SURYA HOUSE, U.C COLLEGE P.O., EAST
KODUNGALLUR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683102
2 GAYATHRI GIRI
AGED 23 YEARS
D/O P.V GIRI, PATTALI HOUSE, VALAPPAD BEACH P.O
THRISSUR, PIN - 680567
BY ADV RAJIT
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VICE- CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 673635
2 THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 673635
3 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS
PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
THENHIPALAM PO, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673635
W.A.No.995 of 2025
:2:
2025:KER:37372
4 THE PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. B UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR GP, SRI. P C
SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.05.2025, THE COURT ON 09.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.995 of 2025
:3:
2025:KER:37372
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.33353 of 2024, aggrieved by
the judgment dated 11.04.2025 passed in it, by a learned Single
Judge, has preferred this intra court appeal.
2. The appellants are the 10th semester law students of
2019-2024 batch of the Government Law College, Thrissur,
pursuing an Integrated Five Year B.B.A.,LL.B. programme.
Aggrieved by the denial of opportunity like "Save a Year" by way of
supplementary examination, which was provided to 2016 to 2018
batches, they preferred the writ petition seeking the following
reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to
include the students of 2019-2024 batch to write the tenth
semester supplementary examination, as notified in Ext.P5.
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to
imbibe the principle behind Ext.P4 order and extend the benefit
of saving 1.5 years by permitting the petitioners to write the
tenth semester supplementary examination, along with the
2016-2018 batch.
c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to
2025:KER:37372
consider Ext-P6 representation, as expeditiously as possible."
3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the
materials on record and after hearing both sides, dismissed the
writ petition. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the said judgment is extracted
below:
"8. The petitioners are 2019-2024 Batch students studying the
Integrated Five Year BBA LLB Course. The petitioners failed in
one paper in the 10th Semester Examination. The next
Batch(2020-2025) is yet to appear for their 8 th Semester
Regular Examinations. The students of 2019 Batch, who are
unable to clear a Paper in the 10th Semester, will have to wait
for another 18 months to reattempt the examination along
with 2020-2025 Batch.
9. The petitioners state that the 3 rd respondent has issued
Notification giving option to appear in the Supplementary
Examination, to 2016-2018 Batch students. The petitioners
seek to write examination along with them.
10. It is to be noted that the 10 th Semester Classes of 2020
admission will be completed only by the end of October, 2025.
There is a delay in commencement of Classes for 2022
admission due to Covid-19 pandemic. The respondents submit
that the 10th Semester BBA LLB (Hons) Regular (2020
Admission)/Supplementary (2019 Admission) Examinations,
April, 2025 at best can be scheduled only in the month of
October, 2025. If the request of the petitioners is to be
accepted, the conduct of Examinations of the same session will
have to be done in two phases which is not feasible."
4. It is aggrieved by this judgment, this writ appeal has
2025:KER:37372
been filed.
5. Heard Adv.Rajit, learned Counsel for the appellants,
Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the University of
Calicut and Adv.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, the learned Senior Govt.
Pleader for the 4th respondent.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that
the act of the respondents denying the benefit of Ext.P5
notification, which was extended to 2016 to 2018 batch, is illegal
and will affect the future of a large number of students including
the appellants. He submitted that the appellants, who had failed to
clear some papers in the Final Semester examination, have to wait
till the completion of the 10th semester classes of 2020 admission
and for the notification for the supplementary examination which
will be issued thereafter, resulting in losing about one and half
years. He also submitted that considering the future of the
students including, the appellants, the University ought to have
arranged the conduct of a supplementary examination.
7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the
University submitted that Ext.P5 notification is not applicable to the
appellants, since the same has been provided for the 2016 to 2018
batches and the time prescribed in the said notification for applying
2025:KER:37372
has run out. He further submitted that it is not feasible to conduct
examinations exclusively for persons like the appellants and they
have to wait and appear for the supplementary examination along
with the 10th semester students of 2020 batch.
8. On an anxious consideration of the materials on record,
it is to be seen that the gist of the prayers as sought for in the writ
petition by the appellants is to extend the benefit of Ext.P5
notification to them also, so that they can save a year. A perusal of
Ext.P5 categorically shows that, the notification is applicable only
for 2016 to 2018 batches and admittedly, the appellants do not fall
in that category. It is further to be seen that, as on date, the time
prescribed in Ext.P5 for completing the registration process has
already run out. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, this
court cannot direct the University to conduct a supplementary
examination exclusively for the appellants and students alike them.
As stated in the counter affidavit, the only option available for the
appellants is to wait till the 10th semester April 2025 session
supplementary examination notification is issued and to participate
in it along with other students of 2020 batch. In such
circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
2025:KER:37372
Ergo, this writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
