Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
FEBIN JOSE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 618 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.AKHIL K.MADHAV, SRI.T.R.JERRY SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: S.GANESH, SC, RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP
The court upheld the validity of disciplinary procedures under statutory provisions for educational institutions.
Headnote:This writ petition concerns a student of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery course at Kannur Dental College, who faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged malpractices during examinations, with a show cause notice issued under Statute 10 of Chapter VI of Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statutes, 2013. The court determined that the procedure followed was in accordance with law, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition, while allowing the petitioner to pursue further legal avenues against any future punishment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of malpractices during examinations. (Para 1) |
| 2. hearing of the writ petition. (Para 2) |
| 3. decision on the lawfulness of proceedings. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a student of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery course at the Kannur Dental College. Alleging certain malpractices committed by the petitioner during the final year part-1 supplementary examination 2025, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the M & LEC. Thereafter, it was proposed to impose punishment in accordance with the existing norms by disqualifying him from appearing in the final year BDS Degree Part-1 examination for the next chance, apart from cancelling his appearance in all examinations of the final year BDS Degree course. Based on the proposal for punishment, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.12.2025. Petitioner claims to have submitted a reply notice, which is produced as Exhibit-P2. Thereafter petitioner has approached this Court through this writ petition seeking a direction to permit him to write further exams and also to allow him to continue the course. Directions also sought to publish the results of the final year BDS Part-1 examination.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader. Considering the nature of the order that I propose to issue, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.
3. According to the petitioner himself, a decision pursuant to Exhibit-P1 show cause notice has not been taken. Though curiously petitioner had given a reply through the mobile phone, as evident from Exhibit-P2, it is evident that the writ petitioner himself has no case that any orders have been passed imposing punishment. The show cause notice was issued in tune with Statute 10 of Chapter VI of the Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statutes , 2013. The said procedure being in accordance with law, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the liberty of the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against any punishment that may be imposed on him is left open.
Sd/-
