IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15923 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAHUL.A.R., CHENANKUZHY HOUSE, KATHRIKADAVU WEST, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 4. PRINCIPAL, THE COCHIN COLLEGE, COCHIN-682002. BY SC SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).15923/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a B.Com regular student of the Cochin College for the period 2004-07. He had a shortage of 17 days attendance for the 2nd year and the same was condoned under Ext.P3. But due to tragic circumstances, he again faced shortage in the 3rd year which was not condoned on the ground that under the regulations, where examinations are held on an annual basis, shortage of attendance can be condoned only once. Essentially this has been challenged by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he must be permitted to get himself re- admitted in the 3rd year course, prosecute the same at least for the deficiency period, and then be permitted to participate in the 3rd year examinations. 2. Issue has been elaborately considered by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment and the operative portion W.P.(C).15923/2009 2 of the same reads as follows:- “When clause 25 provides that, students who have discontinued their studies can get readmission, and write examination in continuation of the previous one, provided the scheme and syllabus remains the same, there is no reason why the same benefit cannot be extended to the students like the petitioner. In my view, on account of the shortage in attendance, he stands on a similar footing like the students, who have discontinued the course, in which case, it should be open to such students also to seek readmission and continue the course. This is all the more so, since there is no case that the syllabus has changed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seek re- admission of course as provided in clause 25 of Ext.P4. For the aforesaid reasons, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to apply to the Registrar of the University through the Principal, as contemplated W.P.(C).15923/2009 3 in clause 25 of Ext.P4 regulations in which event, the readmission as provided therein will be granted and the petitioner will be permitted to continue the studies as provided in clause 25 of Ext.P4. The petitioner shall make an application before the 4th respondent, who shall immediately take up the matter with the Registrar of the University who shall grant necessary permission in this behalf.” 3. I have not issued notice to the 4th respondent essentially because the decision will have to be taken by the University though application for readmission will have to be routed through the Principal. I take note of the fact that the 4th respondent was a party to Ext.P8 judgment. 4. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of holding that it will be open to the petitioner to apply to the Registrar of the 1st respondent, University, through the 4th respondent, Principal, as W.P.(C).15923/2009 4 contemplated in clause 25 of Ext.P4 regulations in which event readmission, as provided therein will be granted and the petitioner will be permitted to continue the studies as provided in clause 24 of Ext.P4. Petitioner shall make an application before the 4th respondent who shall immediately take up the matter with the Registrar of the University and the Registrar shall grant necessary permission in this behalf. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs