Vipin.M v. Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/8TH VAISAKHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 13063 of 2015 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

----------------------- VIPIN.M, VITH SEMESTER STUDENT, ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS BRANCH, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, IDUKKI, RESIDING AT ROADVILA VEEDU, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM, CHITHARA.P.O., KOLLAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM-686 001

2. VICE- CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM-686 001

3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM-686 001

4. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, IDUKKI-685 602 R1 TO R3 BY SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).NO.13063/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING THE PARALYTIC CONDITION OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER.

P2 COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING THE INJURY SUSTAINED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS TREATMENT PERIOD.

P3 COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 13/1/2015 EVIDENCING THE DETAILS OF THE TREATMENT P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/4/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY AUTHORITIES. P5 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10/4/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/4/2015 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE UNIVERSITY.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 13063 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of April, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner is not permitted to appear for the B.Tech VI semester examination, since there is shortage of attendance. The shortage is admitted. However, the contention is that, the Vice Chancellor has ample power to condone such absence.

2. The learned Standing Counsel on instruction, submits that the Vice-Chancellor's power to condone the absence is confined to two chances in the entire course. The petitioner is a person who has availed of both the chances in the earlier semesters. In such circumstance, nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge