IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4171 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UBAITH.V.M., S/O.MOIDEEN V.M., VAZHAVELIL HOUSE, NETTOOR, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN KERALA, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4171 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent had admitted the petitioner for MBA course in the Institute of Management in Kerala. Although before that the petitioner had completed B.Sc.(B.T.) degree course from MG University, he could not pass one of the papers of the 3rd semester examination. He appeared for supplementary examination. At the time of admission, the results of the supplementary examination was not declared, and he undertook to produce the certificates within a short time. For the reason that the petitioner could not produce the certificates in time, his admission was cancelled and he had to discontinue the course. The petitioner submits that the supplementary examination results have been declared subsequently, and he has now been issued a certificate that he has passed the examination. Therefore, he is seeking a direction from this Court to direct the respondents to grant him readmission to the MBA course. 2. When this matter came up for orders on 09/02/2009, it WP(C) No.4171/2009 -2- was adjourned with a direction to the standing counsel for the 1st respondent to obtain instructions as to whether there is any provision enabling the respondents to grant readmission to a student, who had to discontinue the course. After obtaining instructions, it is reported that there is no such provision. 3. Evidently, when the admission was granted, the petitioner had not passed the qualifying examination, and he could not produce the certificates within the time allowed. If that be so, necessarily, the petitioner was unqualified and in the absence of any provision to seek readmission as sought for, I am not in a position to grant relief to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg