IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30085 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AASIM IHZAN A., S/O.ABDUL KHADIR, ANGEVEETIL, POONJASSERY, POONJASSERY P.O. PERUMBAVOOR - 683 547. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE BOARD OF ADJUDICATION OF STUDENTS GRIEVANCES, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE VICE CHANCELLOR. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYAN GURUKULAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., KOLENCHERRY. ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM FOR R3 SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).30085/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Mr.T.M.Abdul Latiff, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.A.Shaji, learned counsel for the University and Mr.Kurian George Kannamthanam, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of the third respondent, Management. 2. Petitioner, a B.Tech student in Mechanical Engineering in the College of the third respondent, was suspended pursuant to an incident which took place on 3.4.2008, when a mobile phone kept by him in the class room, caused disturbance to the lecturer, and on seizure of the same, it resulted in certain other unpleasant incidents. He was suspended for a period of one year and an enquiry was conducted by the University which affirmed the same under Ext.P9 order. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner at quite some length and also perused the files kept by the W.P.(C).30085/2008 2 University, leading to Ext.P9 order. I heard learned counsel for the third respondent at some length today also. Mr.Kurian George Kannamthanam made available the academic record of the petitioner spread over 7th semesters and points out that it is a matter of some significance that the petitioner had failed 23 out of 33 subjects and he has not passed in anyone of the semesters as such. Mr.Latiff submits that the details so given by the Management may not be completely correct. Even going by the figures given by him, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner failed at least 22 out of 33 subjects in theory in which he had appeared in the first six semesters. Mr.Latiff submits that this poor academic performance is not a justification for the decision taken by the Management suspending the petitioner for a period of one year and affirmation of the same by the University without any application of mind as such. 4. I do not think that the statistics brought to my notice by the Management as such, is completely irrelevant. After all, the petitioner seeks to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. W.P.(C).30085/2008 3 4. But, nevertheless taking note the fact that Ext.P9 does not reveal a consideration of the petitioner’s contentions, I am of the view that the petitioner’s appeal be reconsidered by the University. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is set aside and the University shall consider the petitioner’s appeal, Ext.P7, and take a fresh decision thereon, after hearing the petitioner and a representative of the third respondent, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This direction will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the Management for a reconsideration of their decision, if they are inclined to do so. Petitioner’s participation in the 7th semester examination, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, will be treated as regular, depending upon the decision taken by the University on Ext.P7 appeal as aforementioned. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs