Kerala High Court
University Of Kerala vs Shruthi S.Pushpan on 17 March, 2014
Author: K. M. Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph, A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/26TH PHALGUNA, 1935
RP.No. 56 of 2014 IN WA.1411/2013
--------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1411/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS:
----------------------------------------
1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE SYNDICATE
STUDENTS DISCIPLINE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------------------------------
1. SHRUTHI S.PUSHPAN
KALARICKAL, S.N.PURAM P.O., CHERTHALA
ALAPPUZHA-688524.
2. SAJANA E.M.
ERACHAN HOUSE, NATTIKA P.O., RAMANKULAM ROAD
THRISSUR-680566.
3. HANNA KADHIYAR
THAYYIL VEEDU, KALLELI BHAGOM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY
KOLLAM-690518.
4. SUMA MIRIAN THOMAS
C/O.M.T.THOMAS, PEARLY GARDENS APPTS. T.C.12/257
GREEN LANE, PATTOM, PLAMOODU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
5. SHABNA SHAJAHAN
LEKSHMI, T.C.17/412, PUSHPAVANAM ROAD
POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012.
6. VAISAKHY LAL M.S.
SANTHA BHAVAN, MYTHRI NAGAR 23, PATTATHANAM
KOLLAM-689645.
7. ANNA STEPHEN
T.C.25/1374-4, NEAR CENTRAL GARAGE, THAMPANOOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
8. ANNA JULIN JOHN
C/O.B.C.KUNJU KUNJU, VADAKE VEEDU, ALENCHERRY
YEROOR P.O., KOLLAM-691312.
9. DHANYA PREMAN.T.
SOUPARNIKA HOUSE, A5/29 KSHB COLONY
SULTHAN BATHERY P.O., WAYANAD-673592.
10. THE PRINCIPAL
PMS COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695028.
R10 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
R1 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17/3/2014, ALONG WITH R.P.No.57/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K. M. JOSEPH & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ.
=.=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=.=
R. P. Nos. 56/2014 in W.A. No.1411/2013,
57/2014 in W.A.No.1413/2013, 58 /2014 in
W.A. No.1414/2013, 59/2014 in W.A.No.1415/2013
& 62/2014 in W.A. No. 1412/2013.
=.=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=.=
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2014
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the review petitioners, learned counsel for party respondents and learned standing counsel for the respondent college.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners would point out that this court has erred in not setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge modifying the decision of the University. According to him, when the malpractice was detected in one of the papers, it entitled the University to cancel the examination as a whole. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents as aforesaid would support the judgment.
3. A review is not a re-hearing of the matter. This is a case where we noticed that Part-II examination consists of 4 RP 56/2014 & connected cases 2 papers. We also considered that the anomaly was found out in respect of a particular paper, which was held on a particular date. We further found that the other examinations were held on different dates. Most importantly we found that no anomaly in regard to the other papers was found by the University. We further found that to infer that the students must be guilty of wrong doing in the other papers also may not be justified. We noticed thereafter the contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioners that when the University decided to cancel the examination in Part-II, the power is to cancel the examination as a whole. Learned counsel for the review petitioners would point out that the finding that the punishment imposed is harsh is unsustainable and apparently this Court was invoking the doctrine of proportionality. The learned counsel would submit that the doctrine of proportionality has no play in academic matters and if at all it is invoked in service matters.
4. We are of the view that review petitions are merit RP 56/2014 & connected cases 3 less. There is no error on the face of the record as such. There is no challenge to our finding that there was no malpractice noticed in any of the other three papers. We have also found that in the facts of these cases we may not be unjustified in affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The examination consists four papers. When there is absolutely no material to show that malpractice was committed in respect of three other papers, we are of the view that it would not be just to visit the students with cancellation of other papers for the wrong doing committed in one of the papers which was held on a particular date.
5. No doubt the learned counsel for the review petitioners poses the question as what would happen when the examination commences and in respect of the paper, which is taken on the first day itself malpractice was detected. He would point out that the practice is that hall ticket itself will be cancelled. We would think that such a situation is not apposite for deciding the facts of these cases.
RP 56/2014 & connected cases 4
6. In such circumstances, the review petitions are without merit and they are dismissed.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE nkm.