IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2007 / 12TH ASHADHA 1929 RP.No. 612 of 2007(R) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28291/2006 Dated 25/06/2007 .................... : REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS NO.7 TO 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. JIMSY E.S., EDATHOTTICKAL HOUSE, NERIAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. REKHA RAVI, THAZCHIYIL HOUSE, CHERAZHEEKAL P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. BIPIN K.MANI, KAVUNGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PEECHI P.O. 4. ASHA.K., AYYATHU VEEDU, AZHEEKKAL, KOLLAM. 5. TONI THOMAS, VANIMACKAL HOUSE, NEDIYASALA P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS & PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 6 ------------------------------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, CHERUVANDOORE. 4. VISHAL PRAKASH.V., CHERUKARA B-64, MANGAD NAGAR, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM. RP 612/2007 5. RESHMA RAVINDRAN, KARTHIKA HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. 6. NEENA KAMAL, DAVIA PARAMBIL HOUSE, NADAKAVU P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM. 7. NISHA MATHEW, PUNNATHANATHU, VAZHOOR EAST P.O., 19TH MILE, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. 8. PRIYANKA, PUTHUMANGALATHU, SRAUEEKADU, AZHEEKAL P.O., KOLLAM. 9. SHEETHAL K.GOPI, KOCHERIL HOUSE, GOKULAM, MOOLEPADAM ROAD, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SHRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC, MG UNIVERSITY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- R.P. No. 612 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of July, 2007 O R D E R Heard counsel for the review petitioner and Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University. Review petition is filed on the ground that University is considering the case of several others who have not passed first year B.Pharm Examination to permit them to write the 2nd year Examination. If University is relaxing it's Rules of Examination Regulation, then I see no reason whey petitioners also should not get the benefits. Review Petition is accordingly disposed of leaving the matter to the University to decide whether to permit the petitioners to write the second year Examination without passing first year or after writing the first year Examination Issue photocopy today itself. Sd/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg