IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31128 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALEXANDER DANIEL A.D AGED 40, S/O.DANIEL, ALAPATTU HOUSE EDATHALA SOUTH PO, ALUVA 683 561. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRISSUR,OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENING COURSE, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRISSUR. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC FOR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31128/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE 6THE SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKER OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION CONDUCTED DURING MARCH 2011. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKER TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE EXAMINATION DURING SEPTEMBER 2011. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF 7TH SEMESTER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF 8TH SEMESTER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE AND CONDUCT CERTIFICATE DULY ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DULY ISSUED BY THE 4THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. EXT,P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.15.6.2011 ADDERESSED TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.18.10.2011 EXT.P12 TRUE COOY OF THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE PRINCIPAL. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR DT.10.11.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31128 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a part time B.Tech Student, who has completed his 8th semester of the course from the 4th respondent College. His 6th semester results have been withheld. According to the petitioner, withholding of result has been done after permitting the petitioner to attend the examination for three times and further promoting him to the higher semesters. It is also stated that the reason for withholding the results is shortage of attendance during the 6th semester. Recently, he applied for condonation of shortage by making Ext.P10 application. That application of the petitioner for condonation was accompanied by Ext.P8. Strangely enough, this medical certificate issued by one Dr.P.G.Ramesan of the Co-operative Medical College, Kalamassery is dated 12/9/11, where he has stated that he considers a period of absence from duty of 27 days from 20/10/2009 is required. 2. Be that as it may, University has rejected the request for condonation by Ext.P11 stating that the absence was of 29.4% that is beyond the condonable limit of 20%. It is thereafter that WPC No.31128/11 :2 : this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for declaration of his results. 3. Apparently, realising the unacceptable nature of the medical certificate that was enclosed to Ext.P10 application for condonation of shortage, learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue of the validity of Ext.P11 order of the University. According to the learned counsel, the University having permitted the petitioner to appear thrice in the examination, promoted him and permitted him even to appear in the subsequent examinations is now estopped from pleading that the petitioner was ineligible to appear for the 6th semester examination. In support, learned counsel also relied on the Apex court judgment in Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Others {(1990) 3 SCC 23} and the judgment of this Court in Joseph Thalakkal v. The Vice Chancellor and others (1991(3) ILR 738}. 4. Having considered the submissions made at the bar, I should confess my inability to accept the contention. Admittedly, the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of the regulations to appear for the 6th semester examination. It is despite that he WPC No.31128/11 :3 : was allowed to appear in the examinations. If that mistake was found out at a subsequent stage, in my view, University is entitled to correct that mistake and refuse to declare the results. 5. In so far as the judgments that are relied on are concerned those are cases where the students had made all disclosures and despite such disclosures, ineligible students were admitted to courses and allowed to continue the same. On the other hand, this is a case where the petitioner has no case that when he made his application for registration, he had disclosed the fact of his ineligibility nor has he got a case that he had made any application for getting the attendance shortage condoned. In other words, this is a case where the petitioner has also contributed to the mistake. In such a situation, in my view, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp