IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7916 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOMON JOHN MORELY, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. JOHN MORLEY, MORLEY HOUSE, CHALAKKUDY BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.7916 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a B.Tech Electrical and Electronics student at the College of Engineering, Kidangoor, Kottayam district, which is affiliated to the respondents. In the 6th semester examination, he failed in the paper Digital Signal Processing and he appeared for the Supplementary Examination that was held on 08/04/2008. But the result was withheld for the reason that he was caught while engaged in copying. The proceedings culminated in Ext.P4, where the following punishment was ordered to be imposed :- “The Committee recommended to impose a fine of Rs.5,000/- and to cancel the whole semester exam (theory papers only) and to debar from appearing two subsequent chances of VI semester Examination (i.e. next immediate chance regular or supplementary).” Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 before the Vice Chancellor and in this writ petition he essentially seeks a direction to the Vice Chancellor to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5. 2. The case was adjourned with a direction to the standing WP(C) No.7916/2009 -2- counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions and he today informs the Court that there is no provision in the Regulation providing for such appeal. Therefore, the appeal is not a statutory one. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in directing the Vice Chancellor to interfere with the order of punishment in the absence of any statutory power. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended for the position that the punishment imposed as per Ext.P4 is disproportionate and therefore, warrants interference. I am not persuaded to accept this contention either. This is not a case, where this Court is concerned with the punishment imposed on a workman after disciplinary proceedings. But, this is a case where a student, who was found to have engaged in copying, has been punished by the disciplinary authority. Ext.P4, therefore, reflects a matter of discipline in an educational institution and this Court will not be justified sitting in judgment over the wisdom of the academicians, as stated in Ext.P5. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg