IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32977 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NIKITH K.ZACHARIA, 3RD SEMESTER B TECH (MECHANICAL), MAR BASELIOUS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLGY,PO PALLIKUNNU, PEERUMEDU PEERUMEDU, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT KALLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM PO, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM 686 560. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY DO..DO.. 3. THE REGISTRAR, MG UNIVERSITY, DO..DO... 4. THE PRINCIPAL, MAR BASELIOUS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, PO PALLIKUNNU, PEERUMEDU 685 531. MR.T.A.SHAJI, SC FOR THE UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.32977 of 2010 (V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a student of the 4th respondent Engineering College. Presently he is in the 3rd semester, and the 3rd semester examinations are to commence from 10/11/2010. According to the petitioner, he has shortage of attendance. It is stated that seeking condonation of the same, he made Ext.P3 representation addressed to the 1st respondent through the Principal of the College. The petitioner states that thereupon the Principal forwarded his representation along with letter dated 14/10/2010. It is stated that thereupon the University issued Ext.P5 memo rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. It is challenging Ext.P5, the writ petition has been filed. 2. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel appearing for the University, although in terms of Ext.P4 Regulations, it is permissible for the Vice Chancellor of the University to condone shortage of attendance to the extent it is WP(C) No.32977/2010 -2- permissible, the University has prescribed an application form in which the application for condonation of delay should be submitted. It is stated that if such an application in the proper form is filed with the required details, then alone can the University consider the request. 3. In that view of the matter, Ext.P3 being only a representation, its rejection by Ext.P5 cannot be faulted. In the circumstances, the proper course is to direct that the petitioner should make an application for condonation of shortage of attendance in the proper format to the 4th respondent, who thereupon should forward the same to the 2nd respondent. 4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- That it will be open to the petitioner to make an application in the form prescribed by the University for condonation of shortage of attendance to the 4th respondent, who on receipt thereof, shall immediately forward the application to the 2nd respondent. It is directed that if an application in the proper format is received by the 2nd respondent as above, orders on the application shall be passed WP(C) No.32977/2010 -3- by the 2nd respondent immediately. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 4th respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg