IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 26TH BHADRA 1929 WA.No. 2264 of 2007 --------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27057/2007 Dated 11/09/2007 ) APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. MISS SANDHYA GOPALAKRISHNAN, D/O. SATHEE DEVI, THRIDAPPALLY HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SREEJITH M., S/O. P. MADHUSOODHANA KURUP, 5-2 QUARTERS, MEDICAL COLLEGE CHAMPUS,VANDANAM,ALLEPPEY DISTRICT 3. MISS NEENU MARIA VARGHESE, D/O. M.D. VARGHESE, THENAMKUDATH MAPRANI, BEHIND R.C. FORANE CHURCH, CHALAKKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL, INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNICATIVE & COGNITIVE NEURO SCIENCES, KAVALAPPARA, SHORNUR, PIN-679 523. 2. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO PIN-673 635. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.T. RAVIKUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... W.A. No. 2264 OF 2007 ................................................................................... Dated this the 17th September, 2007 J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, C.J.: After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners, we are of the opinion that the learned counsel has not made out a case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) 27057 of 2007 dated 11th September, 2007. . 2. The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners intends to rely upon the observations made by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar [ (1997) 4 SCC 18] . In our opinion, that decision would not come to the aid of the appellants/petitioners. 3. In that view of the matter, we decline to interfere with the orders passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk