IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7262 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. CHISNA VALSAN, IIND YEAR STUDENT, PARIYARAM DENTAL COLLEGE ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, KANNUR-670 503. 2. SAJEERA VAZHAYIL, -DO- -DO- 3. HIMA.M.S, -DO- -DO- BY ADVS. SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN, SRI.VINODKUMAR, SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, SRI.A.S.BENOY. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REP.BY REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MANGAD, KANNUR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, PARIYARAM DENTAL COLLEGE ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, KANNUR-670 503. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR. R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.7262/2010 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF 2ND YEAR TUITION FEES. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.21458 OF 2009 DTD. 6/08/2009 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P3: COPY OF THE MARK LIST DTD. 10/12/2009 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DTD. 10/12/2009. P3(A): COPY OF THE MARK LIST DTD. 10/12/2009 OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/12/2009. P3(B): COPY OF THE MARK LIST DTD. 10/12/2009 OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/12/2009. P4: COPY OF THE PAY IN SLIPS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF 2ND YEAR BDS EXAMINATION FEE HAVING CHELLAN NO.53 AND STATEMENT OF STUDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 7262 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner wrote the 1st year BDS examination, which commenced on 30.10.2008. Even after the start of the 2nd year course which, as per rules, they could attend only after passing the 1st year examination, the results of the 1st year examination were not published and therefore the petitioners were allowed to attend classes for the 2nd year. Results of the 1st year was published on 23.06.2009. Petitioners failed in some subjects and they were not allowed to attend the 2nd year BDS Degree classes further. While so, the petitioners wrote the supplementary examination for the 1st year BDS examination in August 2009 and passed the examination in full. But they were not allowed to write the 2nd year examination. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: W.P.(C)No. 7262 of 2010 -2- “i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to permit the petitioners who has come out successfully in the 1st year supplementary BDS examination to appear in the 2nd year BDS examination and to publish the result who has successfully come out in the 2nd year BDS examination.” 2. By interim order dated 05.03.2010 the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to write the 2nd year BDS examination. On identical facts another writ petition filed by other similarly placed students were disposed of by me in W.P.(C) No.9336/2010 by the following judgment: “The petitioners are students of the 2nd respondent college undergoing BDS course. All of them wrote the first year BDS examination which commenced on 30-10-2008. Normally, the results of first year BDS examination used to be published within 45 days from the date of the examination. But, for the year 2007-2008, when the petitioners wrote the examination, the results were not published before the commencement of the 2nd year classes for the course, although the Rules prescribed that only persons who pass first year BDS examination can go over to the 2nd year classes. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other BDS students for the 2nd year continued to attend the second year classes with effect from 6-1-2009 until the University published the results of the 1st year examination on 23-6-2009, after a period of 7 months. The petitioners failed in the 1st year examination. Therefore, they were directed to discontinue attending classes for the 2nd year. In the meanwhile, the petitioners wrote the 1st year BDS Supplementary Examination in August, 2009 and all of them passed in that examination. Thereafter the petitioners were allowed to attend the second year classes for the last three months. But the respondents directed the petitioners not to appear for the W.P.(C)No. 7262 of 2010 -3- second year BDS examination which was held on 5-4-2010. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to remit the 2nd year BDS examination fees with super fine before 25-3-2010 for the 2nd year BDS exams to be held on 5-4-2010 by the 1st respondent. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to permit the petitioners who has come out successfully in the 1st year supplementary BDS examination to write the 2nd year BDS examination.” 2. On 24-3-2010, this Court passed the following interim order: “The petitioners will be allowed to appear for the examination viz. 2nd year BDS provided they have satisfied the conditions/eligibility for the required attendance. The Hall Tickets will be issued to the petitioners if the said conditions are satisfied. The second respondent will forward the details of the petitioners to the University for appropriate scrutiny. This order will be provisional and subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition.” Pursuant to the same, the petitioners wrote the 2nd year examination but their results were withheld. The petitioners filed I.A.No. 8638/2010 for declaration of results of their 2nd year BDS examination. In view of the fact that identical cases have been disposed of by me in W.P(C) No. 25989/2009, I took up the matter for passing final judgment. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the University also, who would vehemently oppose the prayers of the petitioners. 4. A learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No. 25989/2009, passed the following interim order in that writ petition on 11-22-2009: W.P.(C)No. 7262 of 2010 -4- “Heard Sri.R.Anilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. There is no appearance for the third respondent. 2. The petitioners are students undergoing the BDS Degree course in Century Dental College, Kasaragod. They appeared for the third year BDS Examination conducted by the Kannur University in November, 2008. The fourth year classes commenced in January, 2009. While the petitioners were attending the fourth year classes, the result of the third year BDS Examination held in November, 2008 was published on 13.7.2009. The first petitioner failed in three papers and the other petitioners failed in four papers of the third year BDS Examination. As per the Regulations for the BDS Course, only a candidate who has passed all the third year BDS subjects can be promoted to the course of study for final BDS Part I. However, a candidate who has failed only in one paper can be promoted. 3. Apprehending that they will not be permitted to continue their studies the petitioners moved the Vice Chancellor of Kannur University by submitting Ext.P2 representation seeking permission to continue to attend the fourth year classes. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 14.9.2009 seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue their studies in the fourth year of the BDS course and to appear for the examination. Meanwhile, a supplementary examination was also conducted in September, 2009. The petitioners registered and appeared for the said examination. The results were published on 28.11.2009. The petitioners passed the papers in which they had failed in their maiden attempt. The petitioners submit that in such circumstances as they have now passed the third year BDS Examination and as they have been attending classes regularly since January, 2009, they may be permitted to appear for the fourth year BDS Part I Examination commencing on 17.12.2009. The petitioners contend that as they were pursuing their studies in the fourth year, the delay on the part of the University in publishing the result of the third year examination conducted in November, 2008 cannot be a reason to deny them appearance in the fourth year examination especially when they have passed the third year examination in full though belatedly in the supplementary examination. 4. Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kannur University submits that the Regulations stipulate that a candidate should have passed the third year examination in full before he is promoted to the course of study for the final year and that carry over is permitted if the candidate has failed in one subject only. The petitioners who failed in three and more papers could not have continued their studies in the fourth year of the W.P.(C)No. 7262 of 2010 -5- course, it is submitted. The learned counsel submits that the mere fact that the petitioners have passed the third year BDS Examination in the second attempt is not a ground to permit them to attend the fourth year classes or appear in the fourth year examination. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Regulation No.6 of the Regulations governing the BDS course reads as follows: “6. The candidate should pass in all the IIIrd BDS subjects before he is promoted to the course of study for final BDS Part I (Carry over is given if the candidate fails in one subject only).” If Regulation No.6 is strictly implemented, it would mean that all the students who appeared for the third year BDS examination held in November, 2008, would have sit out till 13.7.2009 when the result of the said examination was published. Such a situation is not contemplated by the Regulations. The University took nearly eight months to publish the results. If the regulations are to be strictly implemented, the University should also be diligent in conducting the examinations and in publishing the results. It cannot therefore be said that the petitioners should have waited till 13.7.2009 to be told whether they can attend the fourth year classes. The learned counsel appearing for the University was not able to point out any provision in the University Act, Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations which stipulate that higher classes can commence only after the results of the lower examination are published. In such circumstances, the period of study undergone by the petitioners in the fourth year of the course after appearing in the third year examination till 13.7.2009 when the result of the third year examination was published cannot be wiped out. Further, the petitioners state that they continued to attend the classes thereafter also. They also appeared for and passed the supplementary examination held in September, 2009 the result of which was published on 28.11.2009. In other words, the petitioners have passed the third year BDS Examination within four months from the date on which the result of the examination held in November, 2008 was published. In such circumstances, in the interests of justice, I am of the opinion that the petitioners should be permitted to appear for the fourth year BDS Part I Examination commencing on 17.12.2009 if they have the required attendance in the fourth year classes. I accordingly direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the fourth year BDS Part I Examination commencing on 17.12.2009 if they have the required attendance. If the petitioners have the required attendance, the respondents shall permit them to appear for the examination and also make necessary arrangements by issuing hall tickets and by providing the requisite W.P.(C)No. 7262 of 2010 -6- number of question paper booklets and answer books. Later, when the said writ petition came up for hearing, I disposed of the writ petition in terms of the interim order, since the interim order elaborately dealt with every issue involved on merits finally and I fully agreed with those conclusions. The facts of this case are exactly identical to the facts of that case. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition also in terms of the final judgment in that writ petition in terms of the above order. Consequently, it is declared that the petitioners have written the examination in terms of the interim order correctly and their result of the examination shall be declared accordingly, forthwith.” Therefore following the said judgment, I dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to declare the results of the petitioners of the 2nd year examination as if the petitioners had written the examination validly. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/