IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 4727 of 2008(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- 1. REJO JOSE, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.P.J.JOSEPH, IVTH YEAR B.SC.NURSING STUDENT KOYIL COLLEGE OF NURSING, KATTAMPALLY P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. RESNA.R., AGED 21 YEARS D/O.RAMACHANDRAN, IVTH YEAR B.SC.NURSING STUDENT KOYIL COLLEGE OF NURSING, KATTAMPALLY P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, (P.O) KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS MANGATTUPARAMBA. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS MANGATTUPARAMBA P.O. 3. THE PRINCIPAL KOYIL COLLEGE OF NURSING P.O. KANNADIPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 4727 OF 2008 K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Nursing students. In terms of the regulations, unless they pass in the previous examination, they are not entitled to appear in the examination for the next year. In the examination held in January 2007 petitioners appeared for the 2nd year examination and they failed in certain subjects. They applied for revaluation and were awaiting their results. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid the University allowed them to appear for the 3rd year examination. However, this was conditional that they should pass in the revaluation itself. While so, as a precautionary measure, petitioner appeared in the supplementary exam for the 2nd year failed subjects also. Subsequently, the revaluation results were declared and the petitioners failed. However, they passed in the supplementary 2nd year examination for which they appeared along with for the 3rd year examination. Since they did not pass in the revaluation, their 3rd year results were with-held and it is therefore that this writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the W.P.(C) No. 4727 OF 2008 - 2 - University to declare the 3rd year results. Petitioners are relying on Exts. P3 and P4 judgments to contend that even if they have failed in the revaluation they have passed in the supplementary examination their results are liable to be declared. 2. On behalf of the respondent a statement has been filed. According to the University, admittedly the regulations framed by the University have not been complied with. Therefore the University would submit that the petitioners are not entitled to have the 3rd year examination results declared, as at the time when they appeared for the 3rd year, the petitioners had not successfully completed the 2nd year examination. They would also rely on Ext. R1(b) judgment of this Court. 3. It is not in dispute that in terms of the regulations, the petitioners could not have appeared for the 3rd year examination, they having not successfully completed the 2nd year examination at that point of time. However, a concession was extended to them and they were permitted to appear for he examination on condition that they should pass in the revaluation applied for by them. Petitioners could not again take advantage of the concession for the W.P.(C) No. 4727 OF 2008 - 3 - reason that they failed in the revaluation also, but passed only in the supplementary examinations in which they appeared. Therefore, going by the regulations, the stand of the University in with-holding results of the 3rd year examination can only be upheld. 4. The petitioners are relying on Exts. P3 and P4 judgments. However, a reading of Exts. P3 and P4 shows that the judgments were not rendered referring to the regulations governing the same. I have no doubt that if the relevant regulations were brought to the notice of the court, the judgments would have been different. I notice that referring to regulations Ext. R1(b) has been rendered by a learned Judge of this Court who in fact rendered Ext. P4 judgment. In Ext. R1(b) the learned Judge has emphasized the need for complying with the regulations framed by the University. If that be so, contention placing reliance on Exts.P4 and P5 is liable to be rejected. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-