IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 RP.No. 407 of 2009(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9837/2009 Dated 01/04/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- H.A.RAHULNATH, S.S2, COMBINED IT, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BARTON HILL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BARTON HILL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENGRANCE EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------------------- R.P.No.407 OF 2009 in WP(c).No.9837/09 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009. O R D E R The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated Ist April, 2009, leaving it open to the petitioner to make an application in the prescribed form for change of subject of the Engineering Course, he is undergoing. Now the review petition is filed mainly contending that Ext.P2 regulation only deals with inter-collegiate or inter-university transfer and that the format prescribed therein is inapplicable, when a request for change of subject alone is made and that too within the same college. On this basis necessary modifications requiring the first respondent to forward Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner to the University is sought for. 2. I heard the Senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner and also the Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent respondent and the Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3. RP.No.407/09 2 3. A reading of Ext.P2, the regulation itself shows that the same does not deal with a request for subject change as sought for by the petitioner. If that be so, the format mentioned in clause (7) of Ext.P2 also cannot be applicable when a request for change of discipline is made. If that be so, the direction requiring the petitioner to make an application in the prescribed form as contained in para 3 of the judgment is erroneous. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, para 3 of the judgment stands modified and it is directed that the first respondent shall on the production of a copy of this order forward Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner with his recommendations, to the 2nd respondent University for their eventual decision. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of the order before the first respondent who shall forward Ext.P1 to the 2nd respondent immediately thereafter and the University shall decide on the request as expeditiously and at any rate within 4 weeks of its receipt by the first respondent. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE RP.No.407/09 3 RP.No.407/09 4