IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30086 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ANZAR.K.N., KOLOTHUM PARAMBIL HOUSE, TOWN HALL ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN -680 020. 2. KAVITHA.C.V., D/O.KUTTYKRISHNAN.T., CHAMATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE, PUDUPALLY P.O., MALAPPURAM, TIRRUR-2. BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE, SRI.U.P. BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENJHIPALAM, CALICUT-673 635. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, THENJHIPALAM, CALICUT-673635. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, MALABAR DENTAL COLLEGE, MANOOR, CHEGANOOR ROAD, MUDUR P.O., EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM-679 578. 4. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, AIWAN-E. GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD, TEMPLE LANE, NEW DELHI- 110 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30086 of 2010 (I) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are BDS students in the 3rd respondent College. 2. In the first year examination, they failed in two papers. In terms of the University Regulations, they were ineligible to be continued in the 2nd year. According to the petitioners, despite the aforesaid regulations, the College permitted them to continue their studies. During the mid stream, the results of the 1st year examinations were declared and the petitioners failed in the examination. It is stated that in the supplementary examination they passed. Now the University has refused to issue hall tickets to the petitioners for the 2nd year examination, which made the petitioners to approach this Court. 3. The petitioners have no case that in terms of the University Regulations, they are eligible to continue the Course. This precisely is the justification offered by the University for not issuing hall tickets. WP(C) No.30086/2010 -2- 4. On the other hand, according to the petitioners, they having been permitted by the College to continue their studies, should not have been denied hall tickets. I am not persuaded to accept this contention. This is for the reason that the right of a student to appear for an examination will depend upon the Regulations framed by the University. In this case, the petitioners have no case that under the Regulations, they are eligible to appear for the examination. In that view of the matter, I am not persuaded to pass an order as sought for by the petitioners. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg