IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 4843 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHEER.M, S/O.M.ACHUTHAN NAIR, 'NIMMU',OPPOSITE NANGOLOTH TEMPLE,CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE,HAVING TEMPORARY OVERSEAS ADDRES:POST BOX NO.46778,ABU DHABI, UAE. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,REP; BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.PO, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.PO, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SC SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.4843 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was a B.Com student under the respondent University during the period 1988-91. 2. It would appear that the syllabus underwent change sometime in 1994 and the scheme which applies to the petitioner is called B.Com Very Old Scheme. Petitioner had not cleared three papers of the final year examination. It would appear that in 2007 petitioner made an application to the respondent University and the same was considered and ultimately Ext.P1 hall ticket was issued. Ext.P1 hall ticket carries an endorsement that the Standing Committee had resolved to grant B. Com Very Old Scheme students, one more chance, considering their request. On that basis, the Controller of examination ordered issue of a hall ticket to the petitioner. WP(c).No.4843/09 2 3. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the examination which was held in July, 2007. However, the results were not declared. It is with that grievance the writ ineptitude is filed. 4. The standing Counsel appearing the University submits that the new scheme was introduced in 1994 and the last examination held for the old scheme student was in September, 2008. Only on the basis of the decision of the Academic Council, which is awarded, they can regularize the appearance of the petitioner in the examination and question of declaration of results raised only thereafter. 5. I am not in a position to appreciate the contention now raised on behalf of the University. As can be seen from the facts stated above, the petitioner applied for appearing in the examination and he was called upon to remit fee. Endorsement on the hall ticket shows that the Committee had resolved to give yet another chance and an endorsement to that effect was made by the Controller of Examinations. On WP(c).No.4843/09 3 that basis, petitioner appeared for the examination and what remains is the declaration of the results. At this stage I am of the view that the University cannot decline to declare the results on the ground that the matter is pending consideration of the Academic Council. If at all the University had such a stand, same ought to have been taken before the petitioner's application was entertained, he was called upon to remit the fee and permitted to appear for the examination. At this stage it is impermissible for the University to take such a stand. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing that the University shall declare the results of the petitioner, which he appeared pursuant to Ext.P1 hall tickets, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.4843/09 4