IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20423 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SULFIKAR ALI.P.T., AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALATHADATHIL HOUSE, KALARANTHIRY, MANIPURAM P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION). 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR. 3. THE SYNDICATE OF THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, CENTURY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, PONACHI P.O., KASARAGOD-671 541. ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R4 SRI.PRAVEEN T. FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20423/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kannur University. 2. The petitioner appeared for the Final BDS Part-I Degree Examination conducted by the Kannur University in September 2008. On the ground that the answers to two questions in the subject 'Orthodontics' Section A are similar to that in the text book of Orthodontics by Balaji, the Controller of Examinations issued Ext.P2 memo dated 20.11.2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against him for malpractice in the examination. On receipt of the said memo, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply dated 9.12.2008 denying the said allegation. This writ petition was thereafter filed challenging Ext.P2 and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to publish the result of the Final BDS examination. The petitioner contends that the mere similarity in the answers to the contents of the text book of Orthodontics cannot be a ground to hold that he had W.P.(C).20423/09 2 committed malpractice in the examination and that in the absence of an allegation that he had copied from a book or notes or from other answer scripts, the respondents are not entitled to take action against him for malpractice in the examination. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that after enquiry by a committee consisting of three experts, a report was submitted wherein the committee had come to the conclusion that no punitive action should be taken against the candidate. It is also stated that the report of the enquiry committee was placed before the Standing Committee of the Syndicate which resolved to cancel the examination of the petitioner and other candidates. It is also stated that the Standing Committee had also resolved to recommend to the Syndicate to take appropriate action against the College. The second respondent has further stated that the recommendation was approved by the Pro Vice Chancellor exercising the powers of the Vice Chancellor and that the appearance of the candidate including the petitioner in the final BDS Part-I examination stands cancelled. 4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the W.P.(C).20423/09 3 files were made available. The files disclose that the Vice Chancellor of the University has ordered that the report and the connected papers should be placed before the Syndicate for consideration and that the Syndicate is yet to take a decision in the matter. As per Statute 3(xxiii) of Chapter VII of the Kannur University First Statutes, 1998, the Syndicate of the University is the body competent to cancel the examination taken by a candidate and to debar him/her from appearing at the University examination for one or more years. The procedure to be followed before cancelling the appearance in the examination and for debarring the candidate from appearing in the examination for a particular period is also prescribed in the First Statutes. Since the Syndicate of the University is yet to take a decision in the matter, I am of the opinion that it would be premature to this Court to go into the rival contentions at this stage. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to pass final orders in the matter after complying with the provisions in the Statute 3(xxiii) of Chapter VII of the Kannur University First Statutes, 1998 and after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being W.P.(C).20423/09 4 heard. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within two months from today. Depending on the decision taken by the Syndicate, the result of the petitioner shall be published. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs