← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/35155/2015disposed of

Rose Johnson v. Kerala University Of Health Sciences

2015-11-20Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/29TH KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 35155 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- ROSE JOHNSON AGED 23 YEARS D/O JOHNSON J.UKKEN, UKKEN HOUSE NO.62 CHANDRA NAGAR COLONY, CHANDRA NAGAR PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- 1.

THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR - 680 581 2.

THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR - 680 581 3.

THE BOARD OF ADJUDICATION OF STUDENTS'

GRIEVANCES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR - 680581 R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,SC,KERALA UTY.HEALTH & THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC NO.35155/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1:

COPY OF THE MARKLIST DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT P2:

COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT P3:

COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REGULATION FOR THE MBBS COURSE RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JV

V. CHITAMBARESH, J.

------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35155 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner contends that the internal assessment marks shall not be reckoned for the purpose of deciding the pass criteria. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision in Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal and Others [(2007) 10 SCC 201]. Ext. P2 complaint put in by the petitioner in this regard is pending consideration. 2.

I direct the third respondent to consider Ext. P2 complaint in the light of the dictum in Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal and Others [(2007) 10 SCC 201]. The term aggregate appearing in para 23 of the judgment aforequoted means the total marks in each paper. Final orders on Ext. P2 complaint shall be passed as early as possible.

The writ petition is disposed of.

SD/- V. CHITAMBARESH, JV JUDGE