IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30616 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SETHUNATH MURALEEDHARAN, 5TH SEMESTER B.TECH DEGREE STUDENT, TKM CE, KARICODE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, KERALA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034. 2. KERALA UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KERALA UNIVERSITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695034. BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC., UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.30632/2011 WPC. NO.30818/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 30616/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM TKM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 30616, 30632 & 30818 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T These are writ petitions filed by the 5th Semester B.Tech Students of the T.K.M. Engineering College. The College is affiliated to the Kerala University. When the 5th semester examinations held on 14.11.11, the Malpractice Prevention Squad of the University inspected the College and found that the petitioners were indulging in malpractice contrary to the general instructions contained in the hall tickets issued to them. Thereupon they were not permitted to write the examinations and were also ordered that they will not be permitted to appear for the remaining papers of the Semester. Contending that an enquiry has to be held and that until in the said enquiry to be so held, the petitioners are found guilty, such an order preventing them from appearing for the remaining Semester examination W.P.(C) Nos. 30616, 30632 & 30818 OF 2011 :2 : cannot be passed, these writ petitions were filed. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University has produced before me the declaration submitted by the Junior Superintendent of the University examinations of T.K.M. Engineering College, which shows that in the examinations held in the question paper Nos.6114 and 6080 these students used manuscripts and answered the question papers with the written answer manuscripts. The proforma to be filed by the Malpractice Prevention Squad containing the details of the malpractice alleged against the petitioners also have been produced before the court. The general instructions to the candidates, produced before me also shows that it contain the instructions to the following effect: “Candidates are prohibited from introducing into the examination hall any book or portion of book, slate, manuscript W.P.(C) Nos. 30616, 30632 & 30818 OF 2011 :3 : or paper of any description and from communicating with any person outside the examination hall. Any candidate found violating any of the rules in the conduct of examination will be sent out of the hall forthwith and will not be permitted to sit for the remaining papers of the examination. Violation of rules in this regard may involve cancellation of the examination taken by the candidate and his rustication for a period will be decided by the University. Candidates caught for malpractice at examinations will have to remit enquiry fee of Rs.500/-” 3. Thus, this is a case which indicates that, there were materials which prima facie indicate that the students had indulged in malpractice, which attract the provisions of the instructions extracted above. If the instructions are applied to the case in question, once the malpractice is detected the student is liable to be sent out W.P.(C) Nos. 30616, 30632 & 30818 OF 2011 :4 : of the examination hall and prevented from appearing for the remaining papers. The provisions of the instructions being as above, the fact that enquiry is remaining incomplete is of no consequence. In such circumstances, having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in Director of Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition and Catering Technology, Chandigarh v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan (2009 (1) SCC 59) this court will not be justified in interfering with such enquiry. 4. However the learned Standing Counsel for the University in fairness submitted that the enquiry against the petitioners will be completed within two months from today. It is also submitted that in the enquiry to be conducted, if the petitioners are found to be innocent of the allegations, the University will conduct necessary special examinations so that no prejudice whatsoever is W.P.(C) Nos. 30616, 30632 & 30818 OF 2011 :5 : caused to the students. I record the above submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and subject to this, these writ petitions will stand dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge