Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29457
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, CJ, RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
vs
WRIT APPEAL 1533/2017
SRI.P.DEEPAK, SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
Students cannot have their results unlawfully withheld if peers in identical situations were granted relief by a prior court ruling.
Headnote:
Education - Students' Rights - Universities Act - Unlawful Withholding of Examination Results
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and four others, students of an M.Tech Course, were denied IV Semester exam results due to failure in the first supplementary exam. They later cleared it in the second supplementary exam but the University withheld results citing court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no basis for distinguishing the appellant's case from a prior allowed appeal where similar circumstances led to the University being directed to release results. The prior ruling set a precedent applicable to this case.
Issues: Whether the University could withhold results based on failure in the first supplementary exam over those who passed in the second supplementary.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle established was that if a prior judgment permitted others in the same situation to receive their results, then the same should apply to the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, directing the University to publish the IV Semester results.
J U D G M E N T
--------------------
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
1.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the University and with their consent, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.
2.The appellant and four others, were students who joined the M.Tech Course conducted by the 1st respondent University. They completed the III and IV semesters without clearing some exams of the I and II semesters. They were therefore not permitted to appear for the IV semester exams for that reason. Thereupon, they came to this Court and there was a conditional order that they must first clear the arrears in the first supplementary exam that was to be held and then, they could appear in the IV Semester. The results of IV Semester would be declared, only if they clear the arrears in the first supplementary. It so happened that all five of them failed to clear the exams in the first supplementary. Though undisputedly they cleared the exams in the second supplementary examination, now the University is withholding their results of the IV Semester on the ground that as per orders of the Court, having failed to clear the exams in the first supplementary and having done so only in the second supplementary, their results of IV Semester cannot be declared. The learned Single Judge, when all the five moved, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the claim of the University. The appellant thereafter went outside the State looking for gainful employment, as he came from a humble background. It appears that in the meantime, the other four writ petitioners moved this Court in appeal and this Court by judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed in W.A.No.2432 of 2016 allowed the appeal and directed the University to publish the results of the IV Semester as well. The appellant could not join in the said appeal as he was not in the State and was not in touch with the other students. On coming to know about the disposal of the appeal, the present appeal has been filed. It is submitted that as the appeal was against the same order to which the appellant was a party, this appeal be disposed of in terms of the same appeal as allowed earlier.
3.The learned Standing Counsel for the University very fairly states that there are no distinguishing factors by which he could persuade the Court to take any different view in the matter.
4.In view of the aforesaid, we have no option but to allow this appeal in terms of the judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed in W.A.No.2432 of 2016. Let University comply with the orders as aforesaid.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE
