IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9232 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.CHANDRASEKHARAN, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE,PUZHAMPURAM, BIYYAM P.O.,PONNANI-679 584, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAJAN.K.T.,S/O.K.T.THARU, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, AYNOOR,PAZHANJI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680 542. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,KOTTAYAM. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,KOTTAYAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.T.A.SHAJI, SC FOR THE UNIVERSITY, MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.9232 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are parents of two students, who are the students of Prathibha Educational Institutions, Punnayurkulam, Chavakad Taluk, an Off-Campus Academic Centre affiliated to the 1 st respondent University. According to the petitioners', though the Rules regarding supplementary examination applicable to the students having private registration are applicable to those under the Distance Education Programme also, the said facility is not extended to the students covered under the Distance Educational Programme like them. Complaining of this, it is stated that they have filed Ext.P3 before the 3 rd respondent, and orders have not been passed on the said representation. 2. What the petitioners contend is that the students covered under the Distance Educational Programme are discriminated as against the students with private registration. This essentially is a matter for the University to decide. Now, that the petitioners have already moved the Vice Chancellor by filing Ext.P3, it is only WP(C) No.9232/2009 -2- appropriate that the 3 rd respondent considers Ext.P3 and passes orders thereon. This the 3 rd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg