IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 35526 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHAFEER.S., PUTHENPURAYIL THEKKATHIL, VASDAKKEVILA, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, THE KERALA UNIVERSITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. *ADDL.R4 & R5 IMPLEADED: R5. C.I. OF POLICE CONTNMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R6. DIRECTOR, FORENSIC LABORATORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*ADDL.R6 & R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 25/08/2011 IN I.A.NO.2815/2011) R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35526/2010 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARK LIST DTD. 29/08/2008. P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARK LIST DTD. 28/03/2009. P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARK LIST DTD. 13/07/2009. P4: COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DGD. 8/05/2010. P5: COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DTD. 11/05/2010. P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 15/03/2010. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 17/03/2010. P8: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.23/04/2010. P9: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE RESPONDENT. P10: COPY OF THE LETTER OF C.I. OF POLICE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35526 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August , 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a student of the Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram. He appeared in the 5th Semester examination held in January, 2010. However his results were withheld. According to the University the reason for withholding the result of the petitioner was that in his answer script of the subject 'International Law' with false No.24172, 34 marks which was originally entered was found changed to 43. An in-house enquiry was conducted by the University which pointed out the possibility of tampering and accordingly the complaint was made before the Cantonment Police Station and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram. W.P.(C) No. 35526 OF 2010 :2 : 2. In the meanwhile one Nagaraj filed a private complaint as C.M.P. 1668/10 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram, regarding the incident in question and the court referred the said complaint to the Police u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly Ext.R1(a) FIR in Crime No.209/10 was registered with the petitioner as the 3rd accused and the allegation is that he conspired with the other accused for tampering the marks to secure pass mark for him. 3. It is stated that as part of the investigation, the Police have seized various records mentioned in Ext.R1(b) receipt issued and that the Investigating Officer has reported that the investigation is progressing and that a final opinion can be arrived at only after receiving reports from Forensic Science Laboratory. It is stated that the complicity of the petitioner could be revealed only after the investigation is completed and the results could be W.P.(C) No. 35526 OF 2010 :3 : published only on receiving the original documents seized by the police. Thus the reason stated by the respondent is the pendency of the investigation in Crime No.209/10 referred to above. 4. Petitioner has also raised a contention that even if the originally awarded 34 marks along with 16 marks awarded for the internals alone is taken together, he will have sufficient marks to get himself declared passed and therefore not only that he had no necessity to tamper with the marks but also that even in spite of the pendency of the criminal case, accepting the originally awarded marks for internal and the external examination taken together, he is entitled to be declared passed. 5. I have considered the submissions made. The communication from the University to the Police such as Ext.P9 and Ext.R1(c) from the Police to the University, will indicate that as at present, apart from the fact that tampering has taken W.P.(C) No. 35526 OF 2010 :4 : place, there is nothing expressly implicating the petitioner. Further, the tampering in question was at a time when the answer papers are exclusively under the control of the University itself and not elsewhere. Though it is the submissions made by the respondents that the investigation in the case is in progress, nothing has been stated to persuade this court to think that the investigation is likely to be completed any time in the near future. In circumstances such as this, leaving the future of the petitioner to uncertainty, especially in the absence of even a specific allegation that he had tampered with the marks, will be totally unjustifiable. This is all the more so when the petitioner is entitled to be declared passed, accepting the marks as originally awarded to him. In such circumstances, I am inclined to think that the University should accept the marks as it originally awarded to the petitioner for written examination and the internals (which is 34 + 16), for the subject 'International Law' of the 5th Semester and declare his results on that basis. W.P.(C) No. 35526 OF 2010 :5 : 6. However, having regard to the fact that Crime No.209/10 of the Cantonment Police Station is pending, the University should mention in the certificate that the same is subject to the proceedings in the said case and in case charge sheet is laid against the petitioner, it will be open to the University to recall the certificates. The University will issue certificates as directed above as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-