Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7965
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
SHEBIN.B.WILLIAM – Appellant
Versus
C.S.I. INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES – Respondent
WP(C)/26295/2017
S.SREEKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE), P.MARTIN JOSE, P.PRIJITH, THOMAS P.KURUVILLA, THOMAS ABRAHAM, S.C
Students must be afforded procedural fairness when their examination eligibility is at stake.
Headnote:
Examination - Student Attendance - Kerala University Act - Sections not specified - The court directed the University to finalize the students' grievances regarding attendance and examination eligibility, emphasizing the need for an opportunity for the petitioners to be heard in the decision-making process.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, students of an LLB course, were denied permission to sit for examinations due to attendance issues despite prior assurances. They filed grievances pending consideration with the University of Kerala.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the University’s obligation to consider the petitioners' grievances and directed a hearing, reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were denied due process regarding their examination eligibility based on attendance requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that students must be given an opportunity to be heard on their attendance-related grievances before final decisions are made.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of directing the University to reach a final decision on the grievances within three weeks.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are students of integrated LLB course in the first respondent college functioning under the University of Kerala. Immediately before the commencement of the third semester examination, petitioners and many other students were denied permission to appear for the examination allegedly for want of attendance. According to the petitioners, they were assured that they will be permitted to sit in the fourth semester classes and permitted to appear for the third semester examination in the next opportunity. However, respondents 1 and 2 have withdrawn from such promise made and thereupon, petitioners have submitted Ext.P1 before the Student Grievance cell of the University of Kerala, which is pending consideration. Petitioners seek appropriate direction to attain finality to Ext.P1 by issuing appropriate positive directions to the University.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that appropriate directions were issued by the Vice Chancellor of the University to place Ext. P1 before the Syndicate, which is pending consideration.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the respective Counsel, there will be a direction to the third respondent University to attain finality to Ext.P1 along with other applications said to be pending before the Syndicate, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE DCS
