IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 374 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25743/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. FRANKLIN ROBERT JOHN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. N.JOHN, LECTURER, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI-682022. 2. NARASIMHA D.S., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SRINIVASA RAO.D.K. LECTURER, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI-682022. 3. JACOB ELIAS, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. P.E.ELIAS, LECTURER, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI-682022. 4. THOMAS.T., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. K.A.THOMAS, LECTURER, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI-682022. 5. S.RAMADAS, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. C.P.SUBRAMANIAN,LECTURER, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI-682022. 6. ABDU RAHIMAN.K.U.,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.UMMER.K.A.,LECTURER SR. SCALE) SHOOL OF ENGINEERING COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI-682022. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ---------------------------------------- DR.N.CHANDRAMOHANAKUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COCHIN UNIVRSITY.P.O., KOCHI-682022. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) No. 374 of 2010-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging disobedience of the order passed by this Court, produced as Annexure 1. 2. After issuance of notice, the respondent has filed an affidavit and the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit also. 3. The respondent herein is the Registrar of the University. As per the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.25743/2009, this Court directed the University to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the additional materials they have received as revealed from paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition and communicate the result thereof to the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that by Annexure 2 reply given by the Registrar, it is indicated that apart from the certification from the Principal, there should be an endorsement by the Director of Technical Education of the concerned State/Registrar of the University, which cannot be imposed in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure 1. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that ccc 374/2010 2 actually the decision is one taken by the Syndicate of the University. The Registrar has only communicated the decision to the petitioners. It is pointed out that the legality of the decision taken by the Syndicate is open for challenge by the petitioners in the writ petition and it cannot be said that the directions issued by this Court have been disobeyed by the University by taking a decision as referred to in Annexure 1. 5. This Court, while passing Annexure 1 order, has only directed the University to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the additional documents they have received, going by para 8 of the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners stressed one aspect, that in the said paragraph, the University has not insisted any additional materials like the one that is stressed in Annexure 2 and therefore they have acted in disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure 1 order. 6. Ultimately, the question turns upon the validity of the decision taken by the Syndicate as reflected in Annexure 2. It is not a case where there is any disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. The University has taken a decision subsequent to the direction issued by this Court. Whether the insistence to get a certificate endorsed by the Director of Technical Education of the concerned State or the Registrar of the University, is a matter which arises for consideration in the writ petition ccc 374/2010 3 when it is finally argued. In that view of the matter, I am not satisfied that the matter requires an action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to agitate their claims in all respects, the C.C.C. is disposed of. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/