Back
2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23030
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
JOSE THAMBI – Appellant
Versus
VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSI – Respondent
WP(C)/7378/2008
SMT.S.K.DEVI, SRI.K.P.PRADEEP (PAYYANNUR), SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
A student cannot be denied the opportunity to sit for an examination without proper communication and justification for attendance issues.
Headnote:
Examination - Hall Ticket - University Regulations - Examination Eligibility - Writ of Mandamus
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ after the college principal withheld his hall ticket for the final year examination, claiming insufficient attendance, despite the University issuing the ticket based on an attendance certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the principal failed to communicate the attendance issue to the University and that the petitioner had a valid basis for sitting the examination.
Issues: Whether the principal's actions in withholding the hall ticket were justified under the University regulations regarding attendance.
Ratio Decidendi: The non-communication of attendance issues by the principal undermined the basis for withholding the hall ticket, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to sit for the examination.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of, allowing the petitioner to sit for the examination and directing the University to publish his results.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner filed this writ petition when the 4th respondent - Principal of the college in which the petitioner is studying, refused to hand over the hall ticket of his final year B.Com degree examination to the petitioner, although, the University had forwarded the same to the 4th respondent for distribution to the petitioner. Apparently, the principal had withheld the same on the ground that the petitioner did not have sufficient attendance for becoming eligible to writ the examination. But from the counter affidavit submitted by the University it is clear that the principal did not inform the University that the petitioner does not have sufficient attendance. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent had forwarded attendance certificate also based on which only the hall ticket has been issued by the University to the petitioner. No counter affidavit has also been filed by the
3rd respondent.
2. In the above circumstances, I do not think that the action of the 3rd respondent can be countenanced at this point of time. At the time of admission, the following interim order was passed in this writ petition.
“If the University has issued hall ticket of the petitioner, the 4th respondent will issue the hall ticket and permit the petitioner to appear for the final examination scheduled to commence from 4.3.2008. However, it is clarified that his appearance will be provisional and result shall not be declared except under the orders of this court.”
3. The petitioner has already written the examination pursuant to that interim order. Therefore, I do not think that the petitioner should be deprived of the benefit of that examination in the above circumstances.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, declaring that the petitioner has written the examination validly and directing the University to publish the results of the petitioner.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
