IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35277 of 2010(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ N.NITHESH PRABHU, 3RD SEMESTER B.TECH (MECHANICAL) ENGINEERING STUDENT, ADI SHANKARA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J., SMT. POOJA SURENDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, ADI SHANKARA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DIST. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY R4 BY ADV. SRI. K.ANAND, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35277 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the third semester B.Tech Mechanical Engineering Student of the 4th respondent College. 2. Examination of the third semester commenced on 10.11.2010 and the petitioner appeared for the examinations held on 10.11.2010 and 18.11.2010. Third examination was on 23.11.2010. It is stated that on that day, the non-programmable calculator which the petitioner carried to the examination hall was verified by the external invigilator, who found that there was some inscription on the calculator. According to the invigilator, this amounted to a malpractice and the petitioner was sent out of examination hall before completing the examination. 3. The remaining examinations are scheduled to be held on 26.11.2010, 1.12.2010 and 6.12.2010 and the Lab examinations are to be held thereafter. Petitioner apprehends that in view of the incident that took place on 23.11.2010, he will not be permitted to appear for the remaining examinations. It is in these W.P.(C) NO. 35277 OF 2010 2 circumstances, the writ petition is filed for appropriate orders enabling him to appear for the remaining examinations. 4. The contention raised by the petitioner is that even if the allegations are true, that does not amount to a malpractice as defined in the University Laws. Further, according to him, at any rate, since the enquiry is yet to be held, until the enquiry is held and he is found guilty, he could not be prevented from appearing for the remaining examinations. 5. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the university and also the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, the Principal of the College. 6. Although the incident in question has happened on 23.11.2010, the question whether a malpractice as defined by the university has been committed by the petitioner, is a matter which is yet to be established. Therefore, until that exercise is completed, I do not think it proper to prevent the petitioner from appearing for the remaining examinations of the third semester. In that view of the matter, I feel that subject to the outcome of the enquiry to be held by university, petitioner should be allowed W.P.(C) NO. 35277 OF 2010 3 to appear for the remaining examinations. Therefore, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the respondents shall permit the petitioner to appear for the remaining examinations of the third semester. It is made clear that the university shall be at liberty to an conduct enquiry against the petitioner which shall be concluded at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and that the results of the petitioner will be declared only on completion of the enquiry. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln/