IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1061 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32646/2007 Dated 07/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT: 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S. ASWATHY, PUTHEN VEEDU, MOONGODU, CHANNAPPETTAH (P.O), ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AMRITHAPURI, CLAPPANA (P.O), KOLLAM DISTRICT. R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEDER SMT.K.MEERA. R1 BY ADV.SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) ADV.SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1061 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.32646/2007 dated 7-11-2007. 2. The learned Single Judge keeping in view the fate of a student who has completed the 3 year course in Master of Computer Application, has issued positive directions to the University not only to publish the result of the examination of the student but also to issue the mark list. This has been done by the learned Single Judge only because at no point of time the University had objected to the student prosecuting her M.C.A. Course in the college which is affiliated to the appellant University. 3. Even before us the learned counsel appearing for the University is not in a position to tell whether the University at any point of time objected to the student in prosecuting the aforesaid course in the 3rd respondent college. In view of the default committed by the University in not informing the student much earlier to the student completing the course, the learned Single Judge was justified in granting the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. In our view, the learned Judge has extended his extra ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction to a student who has completed the 3 years course. This has again been done by the learned Single judge in the ends of justice. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. However, we make it clear that the orders passed by the WA.No.1061/2008 -2- learned Single Judge will not be treated as a precedent in any other case. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS