Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

FABINA N.A. versus COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


FABINA N.A. v. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & - WP(C) No. 21970 of 2007(M) [2007] RD-KL 13239 (17 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 21970 of 2007(M)

1. FABINA N.A.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &
... Respondent

2. DIRECTOR,

3. JOINT CONTROLLER OF TECHNICAL

For Petitioner :SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :17/07/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 21970 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JULY, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner applied for B.Tech (Civil) Lateral Entry Course 2007 in the 1st respondent University. As per the prospectus the petitioner was required to produce the mark list of the qualifying examinations on the date of counselling. The counselling was conducted on 27.6.07. However, since the results of the qualifying examinations were not declared, the petitioner could not produce the mark list. Although the petitioner produced the mark list on 28.6.07, later on, it was refused to be considered on the ground that the same was not produced at the time of counselling. The petitioner would contend that although the counselling was scheduled on 27.6.07 morning, it was actually conducted at 8.30 p.m. on that day. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to give the petitioner admission to one of the available seats.

2. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition primarily on account of delay. Admittedly, the petitioner got the mark list on 28.6.2007 and the counselling was on 27.6.07. The petitioner has not approached this Court within a reasonable time. By this time the W.P.(c)No.21970/07 2 counselling must have been over.

3. Further the learned standing counsel appearing for the University submits that there are no vacant seats in which the petitioner can be given admission. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)No.21970/07 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.