IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2856 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. AJINA K.K., D/O. M.JANARDANAN, PARVATHI NIVAS, KARARAMBA, KUTTIATTOOR P.O., KANNUR-670 602. 2. ABDUL JALEEL A., S/O. MOHAMMED ALI ARAKKAL, ARAKKAL HOUSE, PARAMBIL PEEDIKA (P.O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SANOJ S., S/O. SAINULABDEEN A., SANOJ MANZIL, VELLIMON (P.O), KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM-691 511. 4. PAULSON C.MATHEW, S/O.C.J.MATHEW, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM (P.O),MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. ATHIRA UDAYAN, D/O.N.UDAYAN, UDAYAPURI, K.S.PURAM (P.O), VAVVAKKAVU, KOLLAM. 6. MOHAMMED RIYAS K.T., S/O K.T.KUNHIMOHAMMED, HARIS MANZIL,MUKKILAPEEDIKA VALANCHERY (P.O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. AMMA ZAFAR, D/O. ZAFARULLA M., "SHABNAM", A-47, VRINDAVAN COLONY, CHEVAYUR, CALICUT. 8. MAHROOF THAMARASSERY, S/O. SAIDALIKUTTY T., THAMARASSERY HOUSE,CHOONOOR, CHENGOTTUR (P.O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. MOHAMMED FAISAL M., S/O.BEERANKUTTY M., NIHMATH MANZIL, KARAKUNNU (P.O),MALAPPURAM DIST. 10. JYOTHIS THANKAM, D/O.P.R.THANKAPPAN, KAVIYIL HOUSE, ITHITHANAM (P.O), CHANGANASSERY. WPC NO.2856/08 -2- 11. AHARAON JOSEPH PAUL, S/O.PAUL STEPHEN, ATTUMPURAM, CONVENT ROAD, TANGASSERI, KOLLAM-7. 12. JATHAVEDUS MOHANLAL,S/O.MOHANLAL T.P., "NANDANAM", PNRA-14, PONOGAMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE (P.O), TRIVANDRUM. 13. AMINA SUBER, D/O. SUBER KUTTY A., AMINA MANZIL, KOIVILA (P.O), KOLLAM. 14. ABHIRAM S., S/O. R.S.SUNIL, "AARAMAM" T.C.29/649(2), SREEVELI NAGAR, PETTAH (P.O), TRIVANDRUM-24. 15. SHAFEEQ M.K., S/O.M.K.MUHAMMED, MOOCHIKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, THRIKKADERI (P.O), OTTAPALAM VIA., PALAKKAD. 16. ANJU ELZA GEORGE, D/O. GEORGE M.PAUL, 3/1273, VALIYATHODI, GANDHI ROAD, CALICUT-673011. 17. SNEHAMOL K.R., D/O. M.C. RAMESH, KAMALALAYAM, M.M.7/785, T.C.ROAD, MATTANNUR, TELLICHERRY. 18. BIBIN ANTONY, S/O. T.M.ANTONY, MACHINGAL HOUSE, A.R.NAGAR (P.O), MALAPPURAM. 19. MUHAMMED BUJAIR, S/O.MOOSAKUTTY K.K., K.K. HOUSE, MELANGADI (P.O), KONDOTTY (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 20. NADEERA M.A., D/O.A.M.MOHAMMED KUNHI, "GREEN YARD", KOTTIKULAM, P.O. BEKAL, KASARAGOD. 21. RAHEES V.K., VARIYAMKANDY HOUSE, NOCHAD (P.O),NADUVANNUR (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 22. SUMA SULAIMAN, D/O. SULAIMAN KUTTY, MADEENA MANZIL, KADATHOOR (P.O), THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN-690 523. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM SRI.T.SREEKANTAN WPC NO.2856/08 -3- RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS (P.O),KANNUR. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS (P.O), KANNUR. 3. PRINCIPAL, KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE, ANCHARAKANDY, MAMBA (P.O), KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 2856 OF 2008 M ===================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners have completed 1st year MBBS from the 3rd respondent College. However, they could not pass in all subjects and by submitting Exts. P44 to P65, they have sought revaluation of the papers mentioned therein. It is submitted by the petitioners that the revaluation is inordinately delayed and as a result thereof they are not in a position to continue their studies in the second year, the classes of which has already started. It is in this background, this writ petition has been filed praying for expediting the revaluation and also for permitting them to provisionally attend the second year classes. 2. I have heard the counsel of the petitioners and also the standing counsel for the university. 3. True, once application is made for revaluation, as done WPC 2856/08 :2 : in this case by submitting Exts. P44 to P65 applications, it is the duty of the University to expedite and complete revaluation applied for. In this case, I notice that the applications were made by the petitioners only on 8/1/2008 and therefore, I am not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel that, as at present, there is culpable delay caused in the matter of revaluation. Be that as it may, since future of the students is involved, I direct that the revaluation applied for shall be expedited and completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. Next is the request of the petitioners for permitting them to provisionally attend the classes of the 2nd year. Petitioners have no case that there is any Regulation permitting them to continue to attend the classes even if they have not successfully completed all the papers of the 1st year. If that be so, the petitioners cannot ask for permission to attend the second year classes. The counsel for the petitioners submit that the situation has arisen only on account of the delay that has been caused by the University in completing the revaluation applied for WPC 2856/08 :3 : by them and therefore, this court should exercise its extraordinary power and direct that they be permitted to continue the studies, even on a provisional basis. 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the University has produced before me a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1342/07 dated 11/6/07 where the very question has been considered in the following terms. 5. Neither the University Regulations nor the MCI Regulations does permit a student to attend classes of the second year MBBS course in case he has failed in the first year MBBS course and has applied for revaluation of the papers. In the absence of such regulations, this court, in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction, should not direct the University to permit a student who has failed in the first year course to attend the classes in the second year MBBS course subject to either passing the first year course or till the results of the revaluation of the papers is announced. If it is done, then this court would be re-writing the regulations of the MCI as well as the University Regulations. This is not expected from this court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that a learned Single Judge of this court in WP(C) No.3787/07 dated 5/2/07, had permitted a student to attend the second year MBBS course subject to the result of the revaluation. It is his contention before us that another learned Single Judge of this court should have followed the orders passed by the other learned Single Judge in the other writ petition. In support of that contention the learned counsel has brought to our notice the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar and others - AIR 1987 SC 1345 and also the WPC 2856/08 :4 : observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish- (2001) 2 SCC 247. 7. In the instant case we do not know whether the petitioner, at the time of hearing of the petition, had brought to the notice of the learned Judge the orders passed by the other court in W.P(C) No.3787/2007. If, for any reason, the same had been brought to his notice, the learned Judge either would have agreed with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the other learned Judge or if, for any reason, he was not willing to accept the views expressed by the other learned Judge, he would have referred the matter to a Division Bench as has been observed in the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court. We have also perused the orders passed by the learned Judge in the writ petition. In that order nowhere it is stated that a reference is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the orders passed by another learned Judge. In that view of the matter we cannot find fault with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. In our opinion, in matters of this nature, in the absence of specific rules or regulations permitting a student to prosecute his studies in the next semester or the next course if he has failed in a subject or subjects and has applied for revaluation, no orders need be passed by this Court. This court definitely should not use its extra ordinary jurisdiction to bring down the academic interest of the student and also the academic standards of the University. In the light of the law as laid down by the Division Bench, which I respectfully follow, I am not in a position to concede to the prayer now made by the petitioners. 6. True the counsel for the petitioners wanted to take advantage of the decisions of this court reported in University of WPC 2856/08 :5 : Kerala v. Sandhya P.Pai (1991(1) KLT 812) and University of Kerala v. Molly Francis (2004(2) KLT 1157). The first is a case arising out of the claim for damages and the second one also arises from the judgment in a civil suit. In my view, in view of the binding judgment rendered by the Division Bench as above, which is squarely applicable to the case on hand, I will not be justified in granting the relief sought for. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp