IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27958 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VEENA VIJAYAN,D/O.VALSALA VIJAYAN, AGE 19,3RD SEMESTER,B.TECH(BIO TECHNOLOGY & BIO CHEMICAL ENGINEERING)SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,PAPPANAMCODE. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PRINCIPAL,SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 670 603. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,UNIVERSITY OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PINCODE- 695 001. R2 BY SRI. M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.27958/2011-T: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET FOR THE IST AND 2ND SEMESTER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27958 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a B.Tech student of the College of which the first respondent is the Principal. The 3rd Semester examination commenced on 19.10.2011 and according to the Standing Counsel for the University, the Malpractice Prevention Squad of the University conducted sudden inspection and the petitioner was found to have indulging in the malpractice of copying. She was therefore prevented from writing the examination any further. It is in such circumstances this writ petition is filed with the following prayers. “I. To pass a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to allow the petitioner to write the remaining examination papers pending an enquiry into the alleged malpractice. II. Such other writ, order or W.P.(C) No. 27958 OF 2011 :2 : direction that may found just and equitable and the court may find it appropriate to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 2. I heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the University who submits that since the petitioner was caught red-handed she cannot be permitted to appear for the further examinations. However, facts remains that though the petitioner has been prevented from appearing for the examination on the allegation of malpractice, an enquiry has to be initiated and concluded to hold her guilty and to impose a punishment. Until this is done it is unfair not to permit her from appearing for the further examination as otherwise, if ultimately she is held innocent, the loss caused cannot be compensated. 3. In order to prevent such a contingency I direct that the petitioner will be permitted to appear for the W.P.(C) No. 27958 OF 2011 :3 : remaining examination. However her appearance in the examination will be provisional and the result will be published only after the enquiry is concluded and only if she is found innocent of the allegation of malpractice. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge