IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38145 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SANTHOSH, S/O.BENSON SHANTHI NILAYAM, VENGANOOR PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (WORKING AS PRODUCT HEAD SALES KULATHUNGAL MOTORS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) 2. MAHESH KUSHRA, S/O. M.C. RAMAN SNAKARA BHAVAN, NEERAZHY LANE ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SECTION OFFICER, A.G.'OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SNEHA.R.MANMDAN,D/O.R,.MANMADAN RAILWAY QUARTERS NO.73 (A) THAMPANOOR PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (TTE, SOUTHERN RAWILWAYS) 4. SUBASH.P.K., S/O. P.K.SANKARANKUTTY MENON, 'CHAITHANYA' KATTUKULAM SOUTH PALAKKADU, SREEKRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE OTTAPALAM TALUK, (SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER USHUS TECHNOLOGIES, TECHNOPARK) 5. LENIN.R., S/O.RAVEENDRAN PUTHENVILA VEEDU, PALAYAMKUNNU PO AIROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, LG, LSI) 6. SHERENE JALALUDDIN, D/O.JALALUDDIN K.S.HOUSE, ALATHARAMOODU, ALAMCODE PO (SCIENTIST ENGINEER, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTER) BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR UNIVERSITY PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WPC NO.38145/2008 2. DR. RAJAN DIRECTOR,INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN KERALA UNIVERSITY PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. AMBISHMON, CONTRACT LECTURER INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN KERALA UNIVERSITY PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC FOR R4 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.38145 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are MBA students under the 1st respondent. They applied for the second semester examination. However, they came to know that their hall tickets were not received. On enquiry, it was revealed that their applications for attending the 2nd semester examination were not forwarded to the University for the reason that they lacked the required percentage of attendance. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that there were no system of recording the attendance. On the materials produced, I am not in a position to accept the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent had no system of recording attendance. 3. If it were otherwise, I have no reason to think that the 1st respondent would not have forwarded the applications of the petitioners alone along with the applications of other students. I am not inclined to direct that the petitioners should be admitted to even the remaining examinations irrespective of the fact that they have not secured minimum required attendance. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg