IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24075 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DINSON DAMIEN, S/O.JOSEPH DAMIEN, AGED 24 YEARS, 5TH SEMESTER STUDENT OF MCA COURSE, SCMS SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, MUTTOM, ALUVA, RESIDING AT KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-19. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK, SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS). RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, SCMS SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, MUTTOM, ALUVA, PIN-683 101. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.24075 of 2010 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had joined the 4th respondent Engineering College for M.C.A course. He completed 4 semesters in the first two years under the Old Scheme. According to the petitioner, due to shortage of attendance in the 3rd year, he could not appear for the 5th & 6th semester examinations. 2. In an application made, by Ext.P2 order dated 02/03/2010 passed by the University, the petitioner was permitted to be re-admitted to the 5th semester course during the academic year 2009-2010. Accordingly, the petitioner was readmitted. The petitioner submits that re-admission granted to him was for the course under the Old Scheme and that the College had held separate classes for his benefit. However, when hall tickets were issued for the examination, it was for examination under the New Scheme. Representations were made by the petitioner for the issuance of hall ticket to enable him to appear for the examination WP(C) No.24075/2010 -2- under the Old Scheme. That were rejected by Ext.P6 order of the University dated 20/07/2010 stating that the petitioner will be permitted to appear only under the New Scheme. It was thereupon that this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P6 and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to appear for the 5th semester examination of MCA under the Old Scheme. 3. The University has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that as per the Regulations, a candidate, who has shortage of attendance has to repeat the course, and that a candidate who is re-admitted to a course in such circumstances, has to repeat the semester in which he is granted re-admission, and shall attend the classes with the ongoing batch of the College as a regular candidate and shall appear for the examination under the existing Scheme. It is stated that by Ext.P2 letter, the University had granted permission to re-admit the petitioner to the 5th semester MCA course and that he was not permitted to attend the classes under the Old Scheme. It is also stated that only supplementary failed candidates are permitted to WP(C) No.24075/2010 -3- appear for the examination under the Old Scheme. 4. Thus, it is obvious that as per the Regulations of the University, the petitioner being a candidate who had shortage of attendance to appear for the regular examination, was re-admitted to the course and has undergone the course with his junior batch, has to appear for the examination under the existing scheme. Therefore, the request of the petitioner that an examination should be held for him under the Old Scheme is against the Regulations of the University and cannot be granted. The petitioner has a case that the University had prepared question papers for him. However, the question papers prepared cannot be special for him, as such question papers have been prepared by the University for the benefit of the students, who are appearing for the supplementary examination. Therefore, this contention also does not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. I am not persuaded to interfere with the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg