High Court of KeralaWP(C)/18940/2010dismissed as infructuous

Sundeep Suresh Kumar v. Mahatma Gandhi University

2015-02-24Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/5TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 18940 of 2010 (N) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------------- SUNDEEP SURESH KUMAR, CHEMPAKAMANGALAM HOUSE, KAVIYOOR.P.O., THIRUVALLA.

BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

3. CHAIRMAN, BOARD FOR ADJUDICATION OF STUDENTS GRIEVANCES, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

5. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE, EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

6. THE PRINCIPAL, N.S.S. HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM.

R1 TO R4 BY SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

==================================== W.P.(C)No.18940 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of February, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner, who was a student of B.A.(Eng.) literature in the 6th respondent college, affiliated to the first respondent, challenges the action of the college, in issuing transfer certificate to the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the action of the college before the Board for Adjudication of Students' Grievances of the University, which resulted in Ext.P7 order. Pursuant to the same, the student is said to have filed an unconditional apology, before the Principal, the sixth respondent herein, which was also declined by Ext.P9. Petitioner's claim was for re-admission to the course, which, at this point of time, does not survive. None appears for the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.

sl.