IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 7069 of 2010(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. CHINTHUMA SUBHASH M.K., (REG.NO.DRAHBDS007), BDS STUDENT, MALABAR DENTAL COLLEGE, MANOOR, CHEGANOOR ROAD, MUDUR P.O., EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM-679 578. 2. FAHMEEDHA MADATHINGAL, (REG.NO.DRAHBDS007), BDS STUDENT, -DO- -DO- 3. SHAFEEK SIDHEEK, (REG.NO.DRAHBDS007), BDS STUDENT, -DO- -DO- BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SMT.LAKSHMI RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. TE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, CALICUT-673 635. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, CALICUT-673 635. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, MALABAR DENTAL COLLEGE, MANOOR, CHEGANOOR ROAD, MUDUR P.O., EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, AIWAN-E GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD, TEMPLE LANE, NEW DELHI-110 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 7069/2010(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF 1ST PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF 2ND PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF 3RD PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REGULATION. P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENTS DATED 27/02/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(a):COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REGULATION FRAMED BY THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF DENTAL SURGERY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 7069 of 2010 G ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are BDS students in the third respondent college. In the second year examination, they failed in one paper each. They were not permitted to attend the third year classes. At that stage, they approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. At the stage of admission, this Court passed order dated 05-03-2010, directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue their studies in third year. It was ordered that they will not be allowed to appear for the examination. 3. Petitioners now submit that, after the interim order was passed, they appeared for the supplementary examination of the failed subject of the second year and that the University has not declared their results. According to them, the third year examination is to commence on 15-11- W.P.(C) No.7069/10 : 2 : 2010 and the University is not accepting their application on the ground that as per the regulations of the University, petitioners were ineligible to have attended the third year classes without passing all subjects of the second year. It is with this grievance, this writ petition is brought up for final hearing. Counsel for the petitioners mainly relied on Ext.P4 Regulations of the DCI which, according to the learned counsel, enables the students, who fail in one subject in examination, to go to the next higher class. 4. However, counsel appearing for the University referred me to Ext.R1(a), the Regulations of the University. According to the learned counsel, second year students should pass all subjects for promotion to the third year BDS. It is stated that candidates, who have failed in any of the subjects, are required to put in further course of study with requisite attendance and pass the examination before they can appear in the next higher class. Therefore, according to him, the petitioners were ineligible to be promoted to the third W.P.(C) No.7069/10 : 3 : year having not passed in all the subjects of the second year examination. On this ground, counsel submit that petitioners are ineligible to appear in the third year examination and that it was therefore that hall tickets were not issued. 5. The claim of the petitioners for continuance in the third year class will have to be decided on the basis of the Regulations framed by the University. A reading of Ext.R1(a) Regulations shows that a second year student, who passed in all subjects, alone can continue in the third year class. The Regulations further provide that a failed candidate will have to attend the class, appear in the examination and can continue his studies only after passing the failed subjects also. If this be the Regulation framed by the University, petitioners having admittedly failed in one paper of the second year examination, had no claim to have continued their studies in the third year course. The fact that they passed in the subjects in the supplementary examination will not improve their claim in any manner. If that be so, they, being ineligible to continue in the W.P.(C) No.7069/10 : 4 : third year class, cannot require this Court to pass an order compelling the University to permit them to appear for the third year examination. 6. As far as Ext.P4 Regulations of the DCI relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, a reading of Regulations would show that the provision enabling a candidate, who fails in one subject, to continue studies in the next higher class, applies only in respect of first year students. Even otherwise, University is entitled to prescribe higher standards and the students will be governed by such standards prescribed by the University. 7. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is unsustainable. Writ petition has no merit and is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks