It depends on Vice Chancellor of the University to take decision in view of the facts of the case in a sympathetic manner : High Court of Kerala

WP(C) NO. 7997 OF 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 23RD PHALGUNA 1943 WP(C) NO. 7997 OF 2022 AKSHAYA SHANTHAKUMAR AGED 26 YEARS DAUGHTER OF O.K. SHANTHAKUMAR RESIDING AT SHANTHI HOUSE P.O. KOTTALI KANNUR PIN 670005 ADITHYA P AGED 26 YEARS DAUGHTER OF ASHOKAN P. RESIDING AT AKKOOLKANDIYIL HOUSE VENDUTTAYI P.O. PINARAYI THALASSERY PIN NAMITHA SURESH AGED 26 YEARS D O. C.K. SURESH RESIDING AT CHOWKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE UDAYAMPEROOR P.O. ERNAKULAM PIN 682307 BY ADV C.K.SREEJITH KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. THRISSUR PIN 680596 CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. THRISSUR PIN 680596 BY ADV SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR SC KERALA UNIVERSITY OF WP(C) NO. 7997 OF 2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING WP(C) NO. 7997 OF 2022 JUDGMENT The petitioners are final year studentspursuing their Bachelor of Physiotherapy course in various Colleges affiliated to the Kerala University of Health SciencesNO. 7997 OF 2022 declaring that the clause 1.18 and 1.19 to regulation number 2016 for the courses affiliated to the Kerala University of Health Sciences for the course bachelor of Physiotherapyis not applicable to the petitioners I have heard Sri. Sreejith the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. P. Sreekumar the learned Standing Counsel appearing for It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners cannot be faulted for the failure of the University in promptly holding the supplementary examinations. According to the learned counsel the provisions of the 2016 regulations cannot be applied to the petitioners Sri. P. Sreekumar the learned counsel submitted that the 1st and 3rd petitioners have secured as many as six chances to pass their First Year Examination and the 2nd petitioner has secured as many as four chances to clear the Second Year. In view of the above the contention of the petitioners that the University is at fault cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would also invite the attention of this Court to Regulations and it is submitted that the request made by the petitioners cannot be accepted As rightly submitted by the learned standing counsel clause 1.18 of the regulation stipulates that the candidate would be eligible for registering for the final year examination only after passing all subjects of the previous year. Regulation 1.19 says that though the candidate can be promoted from 1st year to 2nd year and from the 2nd year to the 3rd year if she he fails in any WP(C) NO. 7997 OF 2022 subjects the candidates will have to pass in all subjects of the First year and Second year for appearing in the University exam for the 3rd year examinations having been scheduled on 17.03.2022 this Court will not be justified in tinkering with the regulations which have been put in place by the University after much deliberations I am therefore not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners However I find that the petitioners have already preferred a representation before the Vice Chancellor seeking leniency citing the peculiar facts of their case. The learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that Exhibit P2 can be considered in an expeditious manner taking note of In that view of the matter there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 and take a decision in a sympathetic manner expeditiously taking note of the fact that the examinations are scheduled to be held from This writ petition is disposed of as above RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WP(C) NO. 7997 OF 2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7997 2022 PETITIONEREXHIBITS THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SYLLABUS RULES 2016 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED TO VICE CHANCELLOR DT. 26 2 2022 RESPONDENTEXHIBITS: NIL

Summary: Petitioners have already preferred a representation before the Vice Chancellor seeking leniency citing the peculiar facts of their case to take decision in a sympathetic manner to held their previous exams and was upheld by High Court of Kerala through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V in the case of AKSHAYA SHANTHAKUMAR, ADITHYA &amp; NAMITHA SURESH vs. KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES (WP(C) NO. 7997 OF 2022) on 14th March, 2022. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are final year students (2017 batch) pursuing their Bachelor of Physiotherapy course in various Colleges affiliated to the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS). Petitioners 1 and 2 are yet to pass the first year Anatomy exam and the 2nd petitioner is yet to pass the 2nd year Pathology exam. As per the Regulations issued by the KUHS, supplementary examinations are conducted by the University for the benefit of the unsuccessful candidates within a period of six months from the date of announcement of the results. However, due to COVID restrictions, the University did not conduct the supplementary examinations. The regulations issued by the KUHS says that candidates would be eligible for registering for the final year examination only after they pass all the subjects of the previous year. In the said circumstances, the petitioners are stated to have filed Ext.P2 representation before the Vice-Chancellor on 26.2.2022. However, their valid and legitimate request was not considered in time. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that they cannot be faulted for the failure of the University in promptly holding the supplementary examinations. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of the 2016 regulations cannot be applied to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the 1st and 3rd petitioners have secured as many as six chances to pass their First Year Examination and the 2nd petitioner has secured as many as four chances to clear the Second Year. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioners that the University is at fault cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would also invite the attention of this Court to Regulations and it is submitted that the request made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. The petitioners have already preferred a representation before the Vice Chancellor seeking leniency citing the peculiar facts of their case. The learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that Exhibit-P2 can be considered in an expeditious manner taking note of the ensuing examination. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 and take a decision in a sympathetic manner expeditiously taking note of the fact that the examinations are scheduled to be held from 17.3.2022 onwards.