The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P3 memo issued by the University, in a purported application made for re-admitting the petitioner for 3rd semester First Degree Programme in Physics under CBCS system. The defects which were directed to be rectified are that (i) the re-admission fee has not been remitted, (ii) no recommendation is made by the Principal,
(iii) the application itself has not been signed by the candidate,
(iv) proof of reason for discontinuance has not been submitted and
(v) application for re-admission has also not been submitted.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the University clarifies that though an application was submitted in a white paper, a proper application in the Form as prescribed was not submitted by the petitioner and that is what is intended by the objection at the last item, above referred.
3. The petitioner's contention is that, the petitioner was unable to sit for the 3rd semester examination by reason of his having attendance shortage. The Principal refused to admit him to the examinations, since there was admitted attendance shortage, which was not within the condonable limit.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-College would, in fact, place on record a counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, which would indicate that the petitioner had only 33% attendance in the 3rd semester as against the minimum requirement of 75% as prescribed by the University.
5. The petitioner, however, does not raise an issue on that aspect. The petitioner contends that he sought for re-admission to the 3rd semester, which has now been declined; according to the petitioner, mainly for the reason that the Principal had not recommended the same. The Principal's refusal to recommend has been seriously assailed by the petitioner on the ground that it is mala fide.
6. In the counter affidavit of the Principal, it is specifically stated that after the 3rd semester, the petitioner also failed to attend the 4th semester and it was hence re-admission to the 2nd year was directed. The petitioner had approached the College only after completion of the 4th semester, for re-admission and since the course itself was over, the petitioner was asked to get permission from the University for re-admission. The petitioner was also asked to get a recommendation of the Head of Department [HOD]. The petitioner failed to pursue it. On the Principal's enquiry, the HOD informed him that the seats sanctioned by the University was full for the 2nd year and unless an additional seat is sanctioned, the petitioner could not be admitted.
7. The petitioner, however did not turn up after that and again in September, 2014, approached the Principal with the prayer for re-admission. The Principal again explained the procedure to the petitioner and directed him to approach the University. The petitioner seems to have filed an application before the University even prior to that, in which the petitioner was directed to rectify the defects as noted above, by Exhibit P3. In such circumstance, there can be no interference made to Exhibit P3.
8. However, if the petitioner makes an application in the proper form before the University and remits the prescribed fee as per the regulations, with proper recommendation from the Principal, the University shall consider such application. It is also undertaken by the University that if the Principal recommends the application, an additional seat in the 3rd semester would be granted; which is usually done as a matter of course. However, it is also submitted by the University that since there is a change in syllabi, despite re-admission to 3rd semester, the petitioner has to necessarily appear afresh in the 1st and 2nd semester examinations and attend classes in the 3rd semester and subsequent semesters. The 1st and 2nd semester examination results of the petitioner already declared, in such circumstance, would have no effect.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above liberty.
vku.
( true copy ) Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge