Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABIN GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE P.V. versus THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ABIN GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE P.V. v. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS - WP(C) No. 24414 of 2006(F) [2007] RD-KL 6516 (29 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24414 of 2006(F)

1. ABIN GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE P.V.,
... Petitioner

2. BINULAL P.B., S/O.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN,

3. KIRAN SEBAN, D/O. DEVASIA,

4. SREEVIDYA T.P., D/O.BALAKRISHNAN T.,

5. DIVYA P., D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,

Vs

1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
... Respondent

2. THE REGISTRAR,

3. THE PRINCIPAL,

4. THE SECRETARY,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.SATHEESH

For Respondent :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :29/03/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C).No.24414 OF 2006

Dated this the 29th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

The prayers in the writ petition are as follows: This court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents 1 and 2 ordering and directing them to publish the 1st year revaluation results of the petitioners well in advance so as to enable the petitioners to take part in the 2nd year examination. This court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents directing them to receive WPC No.24414/06 2 examination fee from the petitioners and permitting the petitioners to write 2nd year examination beginning on 22-09-2006 and announce the results.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the University.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even after revaluation petitioners 2 and 5 have failed. According to him. however, petitioners 1, 3 and 4 have passed and he prays that their results in the second year examination may be directed to be declared.

4. Learned standing counsel for the University submits that as far as petitioners 1 and 3 are concerned, they had passed in the first year and they were eligible to sit in the second year examination and their results can be declared by the University. As far as 4th petitioner is concerned, the 4th petitioner had not passed the first year examination before the second year examination and therefore his results in the second year cannot be declared, it is submitted. WPC No.24414/06 3

5. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to the first respondent to declare the result of petitioners 1 and 3 in the second year examination within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As far as the 4th petitioner is concerned, it is open to the 4th respondent to approach the Vice-Chancellor seeking orders in the matter. K.M.JOSEPH

JUDGE

sv. WPC No.24414/06 4


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.