IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 576 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28881/2007 DATED 27/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER / PETITIONER ------------------------ SRIVATSON K.R., S/O.K.V.RAMABHADRAN KANNANCHERRY HOUSE, POST THAYYOOR (VIA) ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM, KERALA STATE. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 4. PRINCIPAL, D.C.SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, PULLIKKANAM, WAGAMON IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OF THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, PIN-673 635. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... W.A. No. 576 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to approve the admission given to the appellant to the management course by the 4th respondent. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the M.G.University. 3. The appellant after writing final year examination in Engineering in June 2006 applied for admission to MBA course in the 4th respondent college. The appellant had to clear two subjects in the 6th semester, the examinations for which were also written simultaneously in June, 2006. The 4th respondent granted admission to the appellant with a specific condition that he should produce mark lists of the qualifying examination (degree course) on or before 31/10/2006. W.A.No.576/2008 2 However, the appellant could produce mark list only for the 8th semester examination within the time granted by the 4th respondent, and not for the two papers of the 6th semester examination for which valuation and publication of results were unduly delayed by the Calicut University. Results of the 6th semester examination were published by the Calicut University after 6 months of the examination, and so much so, mark list of the two subjects in the 6th semester could be produced by the appellant only in January, 2007. 4. Since the delay in publication of the result was on the part of the University, this Court permitted the appellant to continue the course study and to write all the examinations. As of now the appellant has completed two year MBA course under the 4th respondent College under interim orders issued by this Court and the University also permitted the appellant to write the examinations, which was also under interim orders. Before us, the appellant contended that time for submission of mark lists for the qualifying examination was W.A.No.576/2008 3 available till 31/10/2006 and the appellant produced all mark lists except in the two subjects for the 6th semester examination. According to the appellant, examination of these two papers were written by him in June, 2006 and in the normal course within 2 to 3 months of the examination results could be published, and if the Calicut University had published the results in time, the admission given to the appellant under the 4th respondent College will be within the norms of the University as he could produce all mark lists before 31/10/2006. Even though we find force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the University that without a qualifying degree a student is not entitled to admission for MBA course in a college affiliated to the University, we notice that this is an extraordinary case where another University in Kerala after conducting examination in two subjects for the 6th semester took more than six months time to publish the results. In the above circumstances, we feel the appellant should not be denied the benefits of the W.A.No.576/2008 4 course study he has undergone and the results of examinations he has written. Accordingly, we allow the Writ Appeal by reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and by allowing the WP(C) directing the University to publish the results and issue degree certificate if the appellant has passed the examinations. This Writ Appeal is allowed as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg