IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12240 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. PRABITHA .P., DAUGHTER OF CHANDU, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT PATTAYIL HOUSE, CHITHRA NIVAS, P.O.MATTATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SHIJU K., SON OF K.PADMANABHAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KOLLADICHOLA HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUR PALLICKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. HAMEEDA BASHEER, WIFE OF MOHAMED KASIM, AGED 38 YEARS, SITHARA HOUSE, JANATHA BAZAR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.M.SAJJAD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, E M E A TRAINING COLLEGE, KONDOTTY, P.O.KUMMINIPARAMBA-673 638, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW G. VADAKKEL, R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.12240/2011-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROSPECTUS DTD. NIL. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT SLIP OF THE P.1. DTD. 11/07/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE P.1. DTD. NIL. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE P.2. DTD. NIL. EXT.P.3.B: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE P.3. DTD. NIL. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 28/03/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS GIVEN BY THE ANNMALAI UNIVERSITY TO THE P.1. (1ST AND 2ND YEAR). DTD. 06/09/2006/ 15/09/2007/ 12/03/208. EXT.P.5.A: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS GIVEN BY THE ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY TO THE P.2. DTD. 15/09/2007/ 12/03/2008. EXT.P.5.B: COPY OF THE STATEMENT MARKS GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS TO THE P.3. DTD. NIL. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE M.G. UNIVERSITY DTD. 23/09/2008. EXT.P.6.A: COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY DTD. 20/11/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DTD. 14/08/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GA.I/AI/126/98 OF THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY DTD. 03/06/2003. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.526/1965/PD OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 17/07/1965. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 590/1995-T DTD. 03/04/1995. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.31188/2003-K DTD. 11/12/2003. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2005 (1) KLT 680 DTD. 17/12/2004. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.37218/2009 -V DTD. 22/03/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.12240 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is that despite having completed the B.Ed (Commerce) under the respondent University, the University have withheld their results. Petitioners 1 and 2 have passed M.Com degree from the Annamalai University and the 3rd petitioner passed M.Com from the University of Madras under the Distant Education Programme. It is stated that this Court has already held decision in Mujeeb Rahman V. State of Kerala (2005(1) KLT 680) that there should not be any distinction between the students who have passed under the regular scheme and distant education programme. The petitioners also refer to Ext.P13 judgment, where it is held that once the course is completed the University cannot refuse to declare the results contending that the student was ineligible to get admitted to the course. 2. Heard counsel on both sides. In view of the W.P(C) No.12240 of 2011 2 principles laid down in the judgments referred to above, claim of the petitioners are liable to be upheld. Hence the University could not have withheld the results of the petitioners. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that on production of this judgment, the University will take steps for declaring the results of the B.Ed (Commerce) degree and issue mark lists to the petitioners. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC ab JUDGE