IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 23889 of 2010(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. NITHIN.K.T, S/O.K.V.THILAKAN, AGED 22 YEARS, KOYILAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA (PO), THRISSUR. 2. SANGEETH.K.S., KANDAMPULLY HOUSE, PALAYOOR (PO), THRISSUR. 3. SREENATH.P.S., S/O.P.G.SASIDHARAN, PURAKKAMPULLY HOUSE, NATTIKA BEECH (PO), THRISSUR. 4. SANDEEP.O.M, S/O.MUKUNDAN O.R., ORUVANTHURUTHIL HOUSE, AZHIKODE (PO), THRISSUR. 5. SHIBU.P.S., S/O.P.G.SASIDHARAN, PALLIYIL HOUSE, MANAKODY (PO). 6. SREEJITH.M.A., S/O.ARJUNAN.M.R, MEPPURATH HOUSE, ORUMANAYOOR (PO), THRISSUR. 7. DHANESH.N.D., S/O.DASAN.N.K., NEDUMPULLY HOUSE, KATTOOR, THRISSUR. 8. RANJU.E.R, S/O.REGHUNATH, EYYANI HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA (PO), THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.23889/2010 I RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENNIPALAM (PO), CALICUT. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENNIPPALAM (PO), CALICUT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, NATTIKA, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 22220 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23889/2010 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE IIND PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE IIIRD PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE HALL TICKTET ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE IVTH PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE VTH PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE VITH PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE VIITH PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE 8TH PETITIONER. P9: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 7/07/2010. P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR INSTRUCTIONS DTD. 17/11/2009. R1(B): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 16/01/2010. R1(C): COPY OF LIST OF STUDENTS. R1(D): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/02/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23889 (I) & 22220 (B) of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T WP(C) No.23889/2010 Petitioners were B.Com students of Sree Narayana College, Nattika, Thrissur, affiliated to the 1st respondent University. They appeared for the final year examination. However, their results were not declared. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent University to declare their withheld results. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, it is stated that when the examination was scheduled, the Principal of the College forwarded a list of students, based on which, without any further verification, hall tickets were issued. It is stated that subsequently, when attendance particulars were forwarded by the College, it was revealed that the petitioners had shortage of attendance beyond condonable limits, and that therefore, the petitioners were ineligible even to be issued hall tickets or appear for the examination. It is stated that it is therefore that their results were withheld by the University. 3. The affidavit shows that in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned, their shortage of attendance is of 44, 71, 48, WP(C) Nos.23889 & 22220/2010 -2- 45, 60, 76, 85 & 51 days respectively. Learned standing counsel for the respondent University points out that the maximum permissible condonable limit of shortage of attendance is 24 days, including on genuine medical grounds. 4. Thus, the shortage of attendance that the petitioners have, is far beyond the condonable limit. Therefore, in terms of the Regulations of the University, such students will have to re-do the course. That being the position, in view of the admitted ineligibility of the petitioners to have appeared for the examination, this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction to the University requiring them to publish the results of the examination undertaken by the petitioners. 5. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. WP(C) No.22220/2010 In so far as the petitioners in WP(C) No.22220/2010 are concerned also, facts are exactly similar. Their shortage of attendance is also beyond the condonable limit, i.e. 24 days. Therefore, they are also ineligible to appear for the examination. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this writ petition also is liable to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg