IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 1160 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32017/2010 Dated 29/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL RASHEED K.M., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. BAPPU MUSALIYAR, "KADIYARAKATH" HOUSE, FAROOK COLLEGE P.O., CALICUT-673 632. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR-670 567. 2. THE SYNDICATE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR-670 567. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.1160 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32017 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the Registrar of the Kannur University. He filed the writ petition complaining that despite having submitted his thesis titled “Important Principles in Spices with special reference to Nutmeg” as early as on 28/10/2009, inordinate delay has been caused by the University in dealing with his thesis and awarding Doctorate. The University entered appearance, filed its counter affidavit and after hearing both sides, by judgment dated 29th of November, 2010, the writ petition was disposed of. In the judgment, taking note of the further process to be completed by the University, it was directed that the University shall take steps for completing the process and that the entire process should be completed at any rate within 5 months of production of a copy of this judgment. It is seeking review of the said judgment to get the period fixed for finalising the proceedings, this review petition is filed. 2. According to the review petitioner, processing of the R.P.No.1160 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32017 OF 2010 :2 : thesis is over as early as on 2/11/2009 and that the thesis has been found to be in order. It is stated that the panel of adjudicators are also ready and that all that is required is to sent the thesis for evaluation, and on getting the report, to place the matter for open presentation, and thereafter, take a final decision on the recommendation of the adjudicators. It is contended that this whole process will take only less than a month, and therefore, the period of five months specified by this Court is unduly long. It is on this premise, the review is sought essentially for getting the time fixed by this court reduced. 3. According to the counsel for the University, on receipt of the judgment, further steps have been taken and that the petitioner has been issued Annexure R1(c) memo dated 23/12/2010 requiring the petitioner to rectify the inadequacies mentioned therein. It is stated that once the petitioner rectifies the inadequacies, further action will be initiated by the University for complying with the judgment. It is also stated that, based on the suggestions made by the research guide of the petitioner, the Syndicate will have to choose the adjudicators and that the thesis R.P.No.1160 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32017 OF 2010 :3 : will be forwarded to the adjudicators to assess the same, which is a time consuming affair. It is stated that once the adjudicators submit their report, open defence will have to be scheduled and that thereafter the matter will have to be placed again before the Syndicate for considering the matter in the light of the report of the adjudicators and the report on the open defence of the petitioner. It is stated that, thereafter only the Syndicate will take a final decision on the question of awarding Doctorate to the petitioner. It is stated that these proceedings cannot be completed in the manner as indicated by the petitioner. 4. First of all, power of review is invoked only in a case where an error apparent on the face of it has been made out. On facts, I am not satisfied that the pleadings raised by the petitioner makes out a case for review. Still, I have examined the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the pleadings and the submissions made. It is true that it is the contention of the petitioner that, in several other cases, the thesis submitted by candidates like the petitioner were considered by the University and Doctorate has been awarded within much shorter time than what has already R.P.No.1160 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32017 OF 2010 :4 : been taken in the case of the petitioner. Still fact remains that as atpresent, even the adjudicators have not been chosen by the Syndicate. Further, procedure indicated as above are time consuming, and therefore, I do not think that the time of five months specified, of which one month has already elapsed, is inordinately long and require to be modified in a review petition. 5. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the relief as sought for. Review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp