IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 36534 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. K.K. SUBRAMANIAN, KOTTAYIL, CONVENT ROAD, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR -26. 2. SANALJITH K.S. S/O. SUBRAMANIAM, KOTTAYIL, CONVENT ROAD, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR -26. 3RD SEMESTER B.TCH STUDENT, SREE NARAYANA GURUKULAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.A.X.VARGHESE MR.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT, SCHEDULE CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 560 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 560. 4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 560. 5. THE PRINCIPAL , SREE NARAYANA GURUKULAM, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., KOLENCHERRY,ERNAKULAM. WP(C).No. 36534 of 2008(Y) 6. THE MANAGEMENT, SREE NARAYANA GURUKULAM, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. 7. MANU M, 5TH SEMESTER ME STUDENT, SREE NARAYANA GURUKULAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVERNEMNT PLEADER R2 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.T.A.SHAJI, SC, MG UNIVERSITY R5 & R6 BY MR.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 36534/2008-Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE 2ND PETITIONER'S ALLOTMENT UNDR SEAT ALLOTMNT PROCESS OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXMINATION TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S COLLEGE. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE ADMISSION MEMO DATED 24/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ADMITTING THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST YEAR CIVIL ENGINEERING COURSE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 16/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT SUSPENDING THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR SIX DAYS AND EXPULSION FROM THE HOSTEL. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/07/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE COLLEGE FOR THE HOSTEL MESS AND HOSTEL RENT COLLECTED FROM THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE EXAMINATION FEES PAID BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SMMARY AND MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/11/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO VARIOUS AUTHORITIES. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/11/2008 SBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/03/2009. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18/03/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT & ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE-I: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 16/07/2008 ISSUED FROM 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-II: COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 25/07/2008. ANNEXURE-III: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE ATTENDANCE CHART OF ALL STUDENTS IN THE 3RD SEMESTER. ANNEXURE-IV: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/10/2008 ISSUED FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-V: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/11/2008 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-VI: COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF M.G.UNIVERSITY DATED 04/11/2008. EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE EXPLNATION DATED 17/03/2009 ISSUED FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// Rs/ P.A. TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).36534/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The second petitioner, the son of the first petitioner, joined B.Tech Degree course in the 5th respondent’s college in the academic year 2007-08, pursuant to an allotment made by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination. While prosecuting his 3rd semester course, he was involved in an act of indiscipline, along with another 7th semester student as well. There are conflicting versions regarding who was responsible for the incident that had taken place on 7.7.2008. Be that as it may, the college authorities took notice of this act of indiscipline and going by the version given by the respondents, the college council reviewed a detailed enquiry report submitted by one Prof.A.R.Sasidharan, Professor and Head of the Department (Science), and then proceeded to impose a punishment of suspension from the college for six working days, on the petitioner followed by expulsion from the hostel with W.P.(C).36534/2008 2 effect from 18.7.2008. Though it was the petitioner’s allegation that the punishment was imposed only on him and that the other boy involved in the same act of indiscipline was let free, the same does not seem to be correct, in the light of Annexure-I, which evidences a suspension of the said student from the college for seven working days and expulsion from the hostel with effect from 18.7.2008. 2. The petitioner’s period of suspension was followed by absence for almost another 20 days, which, according to the petitioner, was resultant upon a mental depression which he allegedly suffered following the incident on 7.7.2008 and a motor vehicle accident which compelled him to remain away from college for about 16 days. The period of absence subsequent to the expiry of the period of suspension is a matter of controversy and requires resolution. W.P.(C).36534/2008 3 3. The petitioner suffered shortage of attendance beyond the condonable limit and therefore, the college authorities could not issue a hall ticket to him, though the same was forwarded by the University, since the issuance of the hall ticket was made subject to sufficiency of attendance of the students concerned. Finding that the petitioner has only an attendance of 58.5%, college authorities declined to issue him a hall ticket. Hence the writ petition seeking appropriate directions to enable the second petitioner to attend the 3rd semester examinations, and also for a declaration that his participation and prosecution of the 3rd semester should be considered as legal and proper. They also seek a direction to the respondents to transfer the petitioner to some other college. 4. A statement was filed by the 5th respondent followed by a detailed counter affidavit. It is contended that the second petitioner was apprehended for an act of indiscipline involving W.P.(C).36534/2008 4 consumption of alcohol even when he was prosecuting his 1st semester. It is further contended that both the students, including the second petitioner, were found to have been equally involved in the incident which took place on 7.7.2008. The second petitioner does not have sufficient attendance in the 3rd semester. The shortage of attendance reached a level which is beyond condonation. He did not even submit an application before the college authorities for condonation of shortage of attendance. Though he participated in the practical examination pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, he did not even submit an application for participating in the supplementary examination for semesters 1 and 2, which he had failed. The Management cannot be compelled to issue a good conduct certificate to a student, whose conduct has not been found to be satisfactory by those persons who are competent to review his conduct. W.P.(C).36534/2008 5 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.A.X.Varghese, learned counsel for the University Mr.T.A.Shaji and learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent Mr.Kurian George Kannamthanam. 6. Mr.Varghese refers to the pendency of Ext.P8 representation before the Vice Chancellor. He submits that the issues relating to condonation of the shortage of attendance, illegal punishment imposed on the second petitioner, refund of certain amounts unauthorizedly collected by the Management from the second petitioner, who belongs to the scheduled caste community and permission to prosecute the 4th semester course which, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the management, is now under way, are matters which are complained before the Vice Chancellor. Reference is made to another representation dated 21.1.2009, copy of which, though not produced, is referred to in Ext.P9 communication sent by the Registrar of the University to the Management. It is W.P.(C).36534/2008 6 further submitted that further action pursuant to Ext.P9 has not been taken. 7. Mr.Kurian George Kannamthanam submits that the aspects which, according to the petitioners, have been highlighted in Ext.P9 are beyond the jurisdiction of the Vice Chancellor. Vice Chancellor can exercise only such powers as are vouchsafed to him under the University Act and Rules. The Management cannot be compelled to condone the shortage of attendance beyond the statutorily permissible period nor can the Management be compelled to condone the acts of indiscipline, which might have a deleterious effect on a long term basis. 8. The correctness of the punishment imposed on the second petitioner cannot be subjected to judicial review by this Court. This Court can only consider whether there has been any patently arbitrary act or contravention of any statutory provision. At any rate, according to the petitioner, the matter is W.P.(C).36534/2008 7 pending before the Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chacellor may take a decision as to whether the suspension was justified, provided he has the jurisdiction to do so. The other aspects which are highlighted in Ext.P8 and the subsequent representation dated 21.1.2009, may also be decided by the Vice Chancellor, provided he has the jurisdiction to do so. It is essential that a representative of the Management also be heard before the Vice Chancellor takes a decision. A copy of the representation dated 21.1.2009 stated to have been sent by the petitioners to the Vice Chancellor and referred to in Ext.P9 shall be supplied to the fifth respondent before a hearing is conducted by the Vice Chancellor. Vice Chancellor may take a decision on Ext.P8 and on the supplementary representation dated 21.1.2009, after hearing the petitioners and an authorized representative of the fifth respondent and sixth respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Eligibility of the petitioner to W.P.(C).36534/2008 8 prosecute 3rd and 4th semesters will depend upon the decision to be taken by the Vice Chancellor. It is appropriate to refer to the submission made by Mr.Kannamthanam that the Management has no objection to the petitioner participating in the 3rd semester afresh, on a clean slate provided he is willing to do so and undertakes to abide by the discipline imposed by the institution. He further makes it clear that in the event of the petitioner expressing his willingness to do so, the Management will not insist on any tuition fee. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs