Basil Baby, Koshy P. Raju and Martin Augustine vs Mahatma Gandhi University and Others

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioners are students of the 4th respondent-College, affiliated to the 1st respondent-University. On the basis of a complaint of altercation between the students of the College, the petitioners were suspended along with 12 others, by Exhibit P1. By Exhibit P2, again 6 other students were suspended on the very same allegations arising from the very same incident. The incident reported was with respect to an altercation between the students, which resulted in physical violence. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioners were suspended for 40 (forty) days, as is evidenced by Exhibits P3, P3(a) and P3(b). Subsequent to the suspension of the petitioners, the petitioners filed Exhibit P4 appeal and also approached this Court for consideration of the same. By Exhibit P8 judgment, this Court noticed the submission of the petitioners that if the suspension is not revoked, it would entail a disqualification from appearing for the examination and, hence, directed consideration of the appeal after notice to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks. It is submitted that the petitioners were afforded a hearing and by Exhibit P9 it was intimated to the petitioners that the Principal has agreed to recommend the request for condonation of attendance shortage. The petitioners were also satisfied with the same and did not pursue the appeal further. Subsequently, the petitioners were intimated by Exhibit P12 that the condonation is granted only on medical grounds and since the suspension remains as such, there could be no condonation, since medical grounds was also not projected as a reason for condoning the absence. In the circumstances, by Exhibit P12 the petitioners'' request for condonation of shortage of attendance stands rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the same is against the directions in Exhibit P8, since this Court had specifically directed the Board for Adjudication of Students'' Grievances (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") to consider the request for condonation of shortage of attendance of the petitioners.

This Court is of the opinion that the said contention is based on a fallacy that the appeal placed before the Board was one with respect to condonation of shortage of attendance. It is to be noticed that the proceedings leading to the suspension and the condonation of shortage of attendance are two different and distinct issues. What was directed in Exhibit P8 is the consideration of the appeal against the suspension order. The Board misdirected itself and recorded the willingness of the Principal to forward a recommendation for condonation of shortage of attendance and closed the appeal. The request for condonation of attendance shortage, however, as noticed earlier, despite the recommendation of the Principal, stood rejected by reason of there being no medical grounds projected, which alone could entitle such condonation. In any event, it is seen from the records of the present case that while the writ petition was pending, the petitioners were permitted to provisionally attend the 7th and 8th Semester examinations and the expediency now projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is the anticipation of supplementary examinations being scheduled to November, 2013. This Court is of the opinion that there cannot be any provisional grant of permission for appearing for the supplementary examinations, especially since that would require the publication of the results of the 7th and 8th Semester examinations. The publication of the results of the 7th and 8th Semester examinations definitely would turn on the conclusion of the proceedings taken against the suspension order. In the circumstance of the Board having misdirected itself in recording the willingness of the Principal to recommend for the shortage of attendance of the petitioners, it is directed that the Board shall take up the appeal and dispose of the same afresh, after issuing notice to the petitioners as also the Principal and consider the issue whether the suspension is proper, in accordance with the Mahatma Gandhi University Students'' Code of Conduct Rules, 2005 and other regulations on the subject as also on facts. The exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the publication of the result of the 7th and 8th Semester would depend on the result of Exhibit P4 appeal and also on the existence of any other disability from appearing in the examinations, which the petitioners invited upon themselves.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.