1. Students challenged their disciplinary suspension and sought interim relief to appear for examinations despite falling short of mandatory attendance requirements during their suspension period. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68028
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Kalady – Appellant
Versus
Archana P.S. – Respondent
W.A.NO.2276 OF 2026 | I.A.NO.2 OF 2026 | W.P.(C)NO.35256 OF 2026
Important Points
Interim relief cannot be granted if it amounts to final relief unless a very strong prima facie case is established. Courts cannot direct authorities to act contrary to statutory regulations, and any factual basis for such entitlement must be explicitly pleaded in the writ petition.
Subject
Administrative Law - Education Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Education Regulations - Minimum attendance and internal examination requirements - Interim orders in writ petitions - Granting final relief via interim order - Pleadings in writ proceedings.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Pleadings - Where a point of law requires substantiation by facts, the petitioner must plead and prove such facts through evidence appearing from the writ petition; if facts are not pleaded or evidence is not annexed, the court will not entertain the point. (Paras 18 and 24)
(C) Mandamus - A mandamus cannot be issued to direct an authority to act in contravention of law, statutory provisions, or relevant regulations. (Paras 19, 20 and 24)
(D) Interim Relief - Granting an interim relief that tantamounts to granting the final relief is rare and exceptional. Such relief requires a very strong prima facie case, considerations of balance of convenience, and irreparable injury that forcefully tilt the balance in favor of the applicant. (Paras 27 and 29) (E) Intra-Court Appeal - An appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act is maintainable against intermediate orders passed in miscellaneous petitions if such orders substantially affect the rights or liabilities of the parties, are matters of moment, or cause substantial prejudice. (Paras 31, 35 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Students of a university were placed under suspension pending an enquiry into alleged campus incidents. The students filed a writ petition challenging the suspension and seeking a direction to permit them to appear for upcoming examinations. A Single Judge granted an interim order directing the university to accept examination fees and permit the students to appear. The university filed a writ appeal, contending that the students lacked the minimum required attendance and internal marks and had not submitted applications for condonation of shortage as mandated by university regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court found a complete absence of pleadings in the writ petition regarding the students' entitlement to appear for examinations based on minimum attendance and internal examination requirements. The interim order directed the university to act contrary to its regulations and effectively granted the final relief without a strong prima facie case.
Issues: Whether an interim order permitting students to appear for examinations can be sustained when there are no pleadings regarding their eligibility under university regulations and when such an order effectively grants the final relief in contravention of the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the petitioners failed to plead the necessary facts regarding their attendance and internal marks, they could not claim a legal right to appear for examinations. Courts lack the competence to issue directions contrary to statutory regulations. Furthermore, as the interim relief was practically the final relief, it could not be granted without a very strong prima facie case, which was absent here.
Result: Writ appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Pleadings - Where a point of law requires substantiation by facts, the petitioner must plead and prove such facts through evidence appearing from the writ petition; if facts are not pleaded or evidence is not annexed, the court will not entertain the point. (Paras 18 and 24)
(C) Mandamus - A mandamus cannot be issued to direct an authority to act in contravention of law, statutory provisions, or relevant regulations. (Paras 19, 20 and 24)
(D) Interim Relief - Granting an interim relief that tantamounts to granting the final relief is rare and exceptional. Such relief requires a very strong prima facie case, considerations of balance of convenience, and irreparable injury that forcefully tilt the balance in favor of the applicant. (Paras 27 and 29) (E) Intra-Court Appeal - An appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act is maintainable against intermediate orders passed in miscellaneous petitions if such orders substantially affect the rights or liabilities of the parties, are matters of moment, or cause substantial prejudice. (Paras 31, 35 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Students of a university were placed under suspension pending an enquiry into alleged campus incidents. The students filed a writ petition challenging the suspension and seeking a direction to permit them to appear for upcoming examinations. A Single Judge granted an interim order directing the university to accept examination fees and permit the students to appear. The university filed a writ appeal, contending that the students lacked the minimum required attendance and internal marks and had not submitted applications for condonation of shortage as mandated by university regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court found a complete absence of pleadings in the writ petition regarding the students' entitlement to appear for examinations based on minimum attendance and internal examination requirements. The interim order directed the university to act contrary to its regulations and effectively granted the final relief without a strong prima facie case.
Issues: Whether an interim order permitting students to appear for examinations can be sustained when there are no pleadings regarding their eligibility under university regulations and when such an order effectively grants the final relief in contravention of the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the petitioners failed to plead the necessary facts regarding their attendance and internal marks, they could not claim a legal right to appear for examinations. Courts lack the competence to issue directions contrary to statutory regulations. Furthermore, as the interim relief was practically the final relief, it could not be granted without a very strong prima facie case, which was absent here.
Result: Writ appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Silpa Sreekumar, Navaneeth Krishnan A.L.
For the Respondents: T.A. Shaji, P.G. Pramod
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Silpa Sreekumar, Navaneeth Krishnan A.L.
For the Respondents: T.A. Shaji, P.G. Pramod
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued that students lacked the requisite attendance and failed to follow application protocols, while respondents contended that attendance shortage caused by suspension should be condoned. (Para 8 , 9 , 16 , 17 )
3. The High Court observed that interim relief effectively granting the final relief must be rare, and courts cannot direct authorities to act contravening statutory eligibility criteria and regulations. (Para 21 , 24 , 26 , 29 )
4. Courts cannot issue interim directions violating mandatory attendance regulations or statutory requirements, especially when such relief amounts to the final decree without pleading required eligibility facts. (Para 18 , 20 , 22 , 24 )
5. The writ appeal is allowed, and the impugned interim order of the single judge directing the university to permit the students to appear for examinations is set aside. (Para 38 )
6. Can a court direct educational institutions to permit students to appear for examinations in violation of attendance regulations?
No. Courts cannot issue directions compelling authorities to act in contravention of statutory regulations or mandatory eligibility criteria, such as minimum attendance requirements, as this constitutes improper interference with institutional rules. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 )
7. Is an intra-court appeal maintainable against an interlocutory order that grants the final relief sought in a writ petition?
Yes. An intra-court appeal is maintainable under the High Court Act against an intermediate or discretionary order if it substantially affects the legal rights of parties or causes significant legal prejudice, even if the main proceedings remain pending. (Para 31 , 34 , 36 , 37 )
8. Must a writ petitioner specifically plead and prove eligibility facts to obtain discretionary interim relief?
Yes. A party seeking relief must plead and prove all necessary facts establishing their legal entitlement in the petition and supporting affidavits; failure to plead these foundational facts precludes the court from entertaining the claim. (Para 18 , 21 , 24 )
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
1.The appellants are the respondents in W.P.(C)No.35256 of 2026 filed by the respondents herein-petitioners, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 01.09.2026 issued by the 1st respondent Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (1st appellant herein), whereby the petitioners are placed under suspension, pending enquiry regarding certain incidents alleged to have happened on 13.08.2026 in the University campus, in relation to which Ext.P1 FIR in Crime No.735/2026 and Ext.P2 FIR in Crime No.744/2026 of Kalady Police Station have been registered, alleging offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents to provisionally accept their applications, as mandated as per Ext.P6 notification dated 03.10.2026 issued by the University, notifying FYUGP/UG/ PG/Diploma/PG Diploma Degree Examinations - 2026; and a declaration that the prolonged suspension of the petitioners is a high-handed action on the part of the respondents.
2. In Ext.P3 order of suspension, it is stated that in the Syndicate meeting held on 22.08.2026, it has been decided to place the petitioners under suspension, pending disciplinary action, for maintaining academic atmosphere and also for smooth administration of the University; and the Vice Chancellor has been authorised to take further action in that regard. Pursuant to the said decision taken by the Syndicate, the University issued Ext.P4 order dated 01.09.2026, constituting an enquiry committee, which was directed to submit a report after detailed evaluation of the entire issue relating to the incident that happened on 13.08.2026. Ext.P4 order was followed by Ext.P5 memo dated 22.09.2026, whereby the entry of the petitioners, who are placed under suspension, to the University Campus was restricted only on the respective dates mentioned in that memo, for the purpose of attending the hearing before the enquiry committee.
3. The writ petition filed on 12.10.2026 came up for admission before the learned Single Judge on 15.10.2026. The learned Standing Counsel for the University was directed to obtain instructions on the time required to conclude the enquiry, and the writ petition was listed to 23.10.2026.
4. On 23.10.2026, it was submitted before the learned Single Judge that the meeting of the enquiry committee is scheduled on that day and the Syndicate is going to meet on 29.10.2026. After recording that submission, the learned Single Judge posted the matter on 17.11.2026.
5. On 29.10.2026, the petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2026, seeking an interim order directing the respondents to permit them to participate in the ensuing examinations scheduled to commence from 04.11.2026. On 30.10.2026, when I.A.No.2 of 2026 came up for consideration as ‘today motion’, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order directing the respondents to accept the necessary examination fee and permit the petitioners to appear for the ensuing examinations, which are scheduled to commence from 04.11.2026. The interim order dated 30.10.2026 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in W.P.(C)No.35256 of 2026 reads thus;
“After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners should be permitted to write the examination, subject to the result of this writ petition.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to accept the necessary examination fee and permit the petitioners to appear for the ensuing examination, which is scheduled to be commencing from 04.11.2026. The petitioners shall pay the necessary examination fee tomorrow itself so that the respondents can pass appropriate orders.
I make it clear that the appearance of the petitioners in the examination will not give any right or any equity to the petitioners while deciding the case. The app
