IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27285 of 2011(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.G.MANEESH,S/O.MADHAVAN CHETTIYAR, M.G.BHAVAN,KIDARAKUZHY,VENGANOOR.P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT. C.G.PREETHA SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI. ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE MULLAKKARIYIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2. YOUNUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,VADAKKEVILA.P.O,KOLLAM-10 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. R1 BY ADV. SRI. M. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC., KERALA UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 27285/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF EXAM FEE DATED 25/09/2011. P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM DATED 22/08/2011 SANCTIONED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT. P4: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF DR.MADHUSUDHANAN DATED 12/10/2011. P5: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ATTENDANCE FOR THE SIXTH SEMESTER B. TECH DEGREE EXAMINATION APRIL - MAY 2011. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12/10/2011. P7: COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPTS. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/10/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 27285 of 2011 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is a 7th semester B.Tech (Computer Science) student in the second respondent College, which is affiliated to the first respondent University. Petitioner says that, according to the second respondent, he has only 52% of attendance as against the minimum required 75% for appearing in the University examination, which is to commence on 28th of this month. His case is that, if Exts.P3 and P4 are also taken into account, he will have a minimum attendance of more than 76%. Therefore, seeking condonation, he made Ext.P6 representation before the first respondent and approached this Court by filing this writ petition, seeking an order condoning his shortage of attendance and also permitting him to appear in the examination. W.P.(C) No.27285/2011 : 2 : 2. When the writ petition came up for orders on 14.01.2011, noticing that the application should have been made to the second respondent and that the same should have been forwarded to the first respondent with the recommendation of the Principal, the case was adjourned. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, along with I.A.No.16572/2011, petitioner has produced Exts.P7 and P8. Ext.P7 is an application for condonation of shortage of attendance in the prescribed form and Ext.P8 is a representation made by the petitioner to the Principal. It is stated in the affidavit that the second respondent declined to accept the application and, therefore, Ext.P7 was forwarded to the first respondent directly and Ext.P8 representation was also made to the second respondent seeking condonation of the shortage of attendance. On this basis, counsel seeks a direction to the University to consider Ext.P7 application made by the petitioner and to permit him to appear in the examination commencing from 28.10.2011. W.P.(C) No.27285/2011 : 3 : 4. I heard Standing Counsel appearing for the University. According to the learned counsel, in terms of the Regulations of the University, Ext.P7 application should have been submitted to the Principal and that the application should have been forwarded by the Principal with his recommendation to the University. It is stated that therefore Ext.P7 application cannot be entertained by the University. Further, it is also pointed out that the prescribed fee has not been paid by the petitioner. 5. Taking note of the submission thus made by the Standing Counsel, this court will not be justified in directing consideration of Ext.P7 by the University. Be that as it may, having regard to the endevours already made by the petitioner, I feel ends of justice require that the petitioner should make a fresh application to the second respondent and the second respondent should forward the application with his recommendation to the first respondent. 6. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition with the W.P.(C) No.27285/2011 : 4 : following directions:- (i) That the petitioner will make a fresh application for condonation of shortage of attendance in the 7th semester. Such application shall be submitted to the Principal on or before 21.10.2011 along with a copy of this judgment. On submission of such application and remitting the prescribed fee, the second respondent will accept the same and forward the application forthwith to the first respondent with his recommendation in the matter. (ii) On receipt of the application as above, the Syndicate of the University will consider the application and orders thereon shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, preferably in the next meeting itself. 7. Subject to the orders to be passed by the Syndicate as above, it is directed that the petitioner will be permitted to appear in the 7th semester examination, provisionally. W.P.(C) No.27285/2011 : 5 : Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for compliance. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/18/10 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge