IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2860 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MANOJ R.PRASAD, GOKULAM, T.C.NO.14/490(1), NANDAVANAM ROAD, PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O. KOCHI - 682 022, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 2860 OF 2008 M ==================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a B.Tech student in the respondent University, who has successfully completed the course in August 2005. Though he was issued Ext.P3 provisional certificate, the other certificates were not issued and in these circumstances, writ petition has been filed. According to the petitioner, the reason for the refusal of the University to issue the certificate is that the petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.561/2005 of the Kalamassery Police Station, the FIR of which is Ext.P4. Petitioner submits that he is innocent of the offences alleged and that he has been enlarged on bail by Ext.P5. It is also stated that he has made several representations, but then, the representations so made have not evoked any response from the University. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University conceding that the petitioner has successfully completed the course as stated by him. According to the University, certificate cannot be issued, as the conduct of the petitioner disentitled him for the certificate. It is stated that WPC 2860/08 :2 : since he is an accused in a case of forging marklists and certificates, he should not be issued the certificate. They are also relying on the provisions of the Cochin University Students' (Conduct and Disciplinary) Code-2005 to justify their stand. 3. I have heard the counsel on either side. 4. In my view though it is true that the petitioner is an accused as stated by the University, that does not disentitle the petitioner the certificate of the B.Tech degree that he has successfully completed. Even going by the Conduct rules relied on, I am not satisfied that said rule has any relevance as it is meant to enforce discipline in the campus. Since the petitioner has ceased to be a student, he cannot now be said to be governed by the Conduct Rules. No other rules enabling the University to deny certificate to a student for the reason that he is an accused in a criminal case has been shown to me. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the stand taken by the University in declining the request of the petitioner to issue the certificates. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the respondent shall issue degree certificate to the petitioner with respect to WPC 2860/08 :3 : the B.Tech Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering, which the petitioner has completed in August, 2005. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp