IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17787 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER -------------------------------- RAJANI.K, AGED 23, D/O. RAJAN.K.K, KURUMBERIYIL HOUSE, POOMALA POST, S. BATHERY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI. E.C.BINEESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY POST, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY POST, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CAMPUS DIRECTOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, REGIONAL CENTRE, KOYILANDI. 4. THE TEACHER IN CHARGE OF EXAMINATIONS, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY POST, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,SANKARACHA.UTY FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.17787 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a student of M.A. Literature (Sanskrit). The petitioner appeared for the 1st Semester examination. But the results of the 1st Semester examination of the petitioner were not declared, because of certain technical reasons, till 28.3.08. However, the petitioner was allowed to continue studies in the 2nd Semester and the petitioner attended classes regularly. According to the petitioner, as is evident from Ext.P2, the petitioner has the required attendance in the 2nd Semester necessary for appearing for the 2nd Semester examination. She wrote the 2nd Semester examination also. Subsequently, the University, by Ext.P4 order, informed the College that the petitioner does not have the minimum attendance for writing the 2nd Semester examination, apparently on the basis that he could have attended classes in the 2nd semester only after declaration of result of the 1st Semester examination on 28.3.2008. The petitioner's contention 2 is that it was not because of any fault on the part of the petitioner that this difficulties arose, but only because of the delay of the University in declaring the results of her 1st Semester examination. She would further submit that in so far as she had attended the classes and obtained required attendance for the 2nd Semester, now that the admission has been regularised, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the attendance she has obtained validly as permitted by the authorities. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash Exhibit P4 Order as illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to attend the 3 rd semester classes. iii. Declare that petitioner shall not be punished for the alleged technical reasons alleged by the University and may declare that petitioner was eligible to attend the 2 nd semester classes and examination. iv. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P5, as per law, with an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, without any further delay.” Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University submits that now that the petitioner's admission has been 3 regularised, she can have the benefits of the 2nd Semester examination also and continue the studies. This submission is recorded and the writ petition is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd