IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 6737 of 2008(B) -------- ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. HAREESH.G., S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 21 YEARS, 'GOPIKA', NAVAIKULAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NABEEL.N., S/O.NAZAR, AGED 20 YEARS, SALIKA, MALAMELPARAMBU, KANIYAPURAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. NISHAN.B., AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.A.R.BASHEER, SIMI MANZIL, VAKKOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. NITHIN MANIKANTAN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.O.G.MANIKANTAN, BHAVANARAJ, MANNOOR BHAGAM, ALANCODE P.O., ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT I.T.I. CAMPUS, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U FOR R1 & 2 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, IHRD FOR R3 SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM,SC,CUSAT,COCHIN FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P (C) .No.6737 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are students doing the 5th semester Computer Science Engineering course in the 3rd respondent's College. They have not been permitted to write the 5th semester examination on the ground that they did not have the required attendance. The petitioners' contention is that they did have the required attendance and it was mistakenly reported by the Principal to the University that they did not have the required attendance. They would rely on Ext.P7 attendance particulars stated to have been issued by the Principal of the College to one of the petitioner's parents, according to which two of the petitioners do have the required percentage of attendance. Petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to admit the petitioners in the VIth Semester Course by condoning the attendance already lost the petitioners in the VIth Semester to participate in W.P (C) .No.6737 of 2008 - 2 - the supplementary Exam in Vth Semester. (ii) issue a writ of certeriori to call for the records relating to Exhibit P3 to P6 and the same may quashed by this Hon'ble Court. (iii) Award the cost of the writ from the respondent and then assets.” 2. The principal has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioners do not have the minimum required attendance for writing the examination. The Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has also filed a statement producing along with the same Annexure 1 statement of attendance forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the University which would show that all the four petitioners did not have required percentage of attendance and the shortage of attendance is not even within the condonable limit of 5 percent. The contention of the petitioners is that in view of Ext.P7 that should be relied upon and not the Annexure 1 produced by the respondents 1 and 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The issue is purely a question of evidence. The petitioners do W.P (C) .No.6737 of 2008 - 3 - not have any case that the principal has done any foul play. They do not even have any contention that the principal has anything against them. The principal has forwarded Annexure 1 attendance particulars to the University based on the attendance register available with the college. He has also filed an affidavit to the effect that the petitioners do not have required percentage of the attendance. I have absolutely no reason to believe the same. When the same is accepted, it is clear that the petitioners do not have the required percentage of attendance. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs