Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 1ST BHADRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 27989 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:
BAZIR HASSAN AGED 19 YEARS S/O ABDUL MAJEED, RESIDING AT ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682033 BY ADVS.
MANU GOVIND AYESHA MARIA JOHN RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM,, PIN - 686001
2 THE SCMS SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL PRATHAP NAGAR, MUTTOM, ALUVA, KOCHI, PIN - 683106 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
(Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2024)
The petitioner is a student of 2nd semester B.Com of the
2nd respondent College, afÏliated with 1st respondent University. The grievance voiced in this writ petition is that in the light of interim order dated 18.06.2024 in W.P.(C) No.21843 of 2024, the petitioner was provisionally permitted to attend 2nd Semester B.Com Exam, dehors the shortage of attendance. In that respect, he already preferred a representation before the University which is directed to be considered and pass appropriate orders by the Board of Adjudication of Student Grievance by this Court.
2. Thereafter the petitioner was not permitted to appear for the class. Hence he preferred the present writ petition. In this regard, there was an interim order dated 07.08.2024 directing the respondent concerned to provisionally permit the petitioner to attend 3rd semester B.Com which has commenced on 01st July, 2024. In the light of said direction, the petitioner was permitted to attend the class till today. This has been testified by the Standing Counsel appearing for the University. In that respect, he has already preferred Ext.P6 representation before the Vice Chancellor, M.G.University.
3. In response to that, Standing Counsel for the University submitted that such application has to be submitted before the Board of Adjudication of Student Grievance. That is the authority to consider such issues.
4. I heard Sri. Manu Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Surin George, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri. Millu Dandapani, learned Counsel for the
2nd respondent.
5. On considering the submissions made on both sides, it is discernible that the petitioner has approached Vice Chancellor as per Ext.P6, who is not the appropriate authority at the first instance. Hence Vice Chancellor will have to forward Ext.P6 application to Board of Adjudication of Student Grievance.
For that purpose, the 1st respondent shall take necessary steps to forward Ext.P6 representation before the Board of Adjudication of Student Grievance which is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
