IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34651 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NENA BASHEER, B D S STUDENT, P S M COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE & RESEARCH, BYE-PASS ROAD, AKKIKAVU P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRINCIPAL, P S M COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE & RESEARCH, BYE-PASS ROAD, AKKIKAVU P.O., THRISSUR. 2. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.34651 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, seeks a direction to the first respondent college to allow him to attend the classes along with the additional batch. A further direction is sought for to allow the petitioner to sit for the supplementary examination for first year B.D.S. 2. The petitioner was included in the merit list for admission to BDS course in the entrance examination 2007 and she was granted admission to the first respondent college and joined the course on 3/10/2007 after paying Rs.87,000/- as fees. It is the case of the petitioner she could not attend the class regularly, hence she could not sit for the first year examination conducted for first year BDS students in November, 2008 and had produced a medical certificate at that point of time. Ext.P1 is the copy of the application prepared by the first respondent for the petitioner to sit for the regular examination which was conducted in November, 2008, but it was not forwarded. 3. The failed students of the first batch were treated as additional batch students and the petitioner appeared for W.P.(C)No.34651 of 2009 2 entrance examination during the year 2009 conducted by the Government of Kerala for admission to MBBS, BDS and other allied courses. She was included in the merit list for the BDS course and she was allotted Malabar Dental College, Edappal and wanted to join in the said college. Since the petitioner was not granted Transfer Certificate she filed W.P.(C). No.27516/2009 which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment. This Court directed the first respondent to allow her to attend first year along with four students. 4. It is the case of the petitioner in view of the Ext.P2 judgment the first respondent should permit her to attend classes along with other students as additional first batch. Now the petitioner is directed to enlist herself along with the first year students which is contrary to the directions and Ext.P2 judgment. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the University. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the college that in Ext.P2 judgment this Court directed the fourth respondent to permit the petitioner to attend the first year B.D.S course along with W.P.(C)No.34651 of 2009 3 four other students, who have failed in the first year BDS examination, as an additional batch of students. But in the meanwhile those students have passed the examination and the college is prepared to allow the petitioner to write the examination. She will have to sit with the first year batch but she can write the examination so that she will not be prejudiced, and seeking for appropriate permission in the matter the College has already submitted an application before the Controller of Examinations as per Ext.R1(d). It is pointed out the first respondent never wanted to cause inconvenience to the student or to suffer one year of the course by her. 6. The learned counsel for the University submitted that the matter requires consideration in the light of the fact that there is shortage of attendance and the competent authority of the University namely the Vice Chancellor alone can consider the matter. 7. Even though certain difficulties have been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the University it is clear that the direction in Ext.P2 judgment will have to be implemented. The petitioner cannot therefore be penalized in W.P.(C)No.34651 of 2009 4 the matter. The petitioner will have to approach the Vice Chancellor to take an appropriate decision. 8. There will be a direction to the petitioner to approach the Vice Chancellor which shall be considered along with the request Ext.R1(d) submitted by the Principal before the Controller of Examinations and appropriate orders will be passed by the Vice Chancellor within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj