University Of Calicut v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/15TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 12523 of 2008 (N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM.

BY ADV.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. TENCY JACOB, KUZHUMBIL HOUSE, CHEVAYOOR.P.O, KOZHIKODE.

3. NISHAD.N.M, NURSING TUTOR, SANTHI SCHOOL OF NURSING, OMASSERY.P.O, KODUVALLY KOZHIKODE.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN DAVIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2015, ALONG WITH WPC. 12628/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PJ

WP(C).No. 12523 of 2008 (N) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- P1:

COPY OF THE PETITION DT.16/2/08 P(A):

COPY OF THE PETITION DT.16/2/08 P2:

COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.20/2/08 P3:

COPY OF THE ORDER DT.16/2/08 P4:

COPY OF THE WRITTEN NOTES OF SUBMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DT.28/2/08 P5:

COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1 IN HRMP NO.836 AND 837 OF 2008 P6:

COPY OF THE REGULATION FOR B.SC NURSING P7:

COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR P8:

COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.22147/07 P8:

COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN WA.2981/07 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT ------------------------------------ NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

==================================== W.P.(C)Nos.12523 & 12628/2008 ==================================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners, in the above writ petitions, are respectively the University and the student. The University challenges the order of the Human Rights Commission, which directed the University, not to insist for compulsory internship. The student seeks implementation of the order of the Human Rights Commission.

Learned counsel for the University submits that, the student has, later to the filing of the writ petition, completed the internship and has also been issued with a certificate and nothing survives in both the writ petitions. Human Rights Commission's order is, hence, of no avail, since, the same was passed on the basis of the guidelines existing then. Writ petitions would stand closed. K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.

sl.