AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
It is without contest – both sides unequivocally admitting – that the issues in this case - both factual and legal - have been answered by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.38053/2022 and connected cases.
Sri.Sivaji B.S. - learned counsel for the petitioner, asserts that his client is identically situated as the petitioners in the aforementioned judgment.
In the afore circumstances, I am certain that the petitioner herein is also entitled to the same relief granted to those who had obtained the judgment in W.P.(C) No.38053/2022 and connected cases.
Resultantly, I allow this writ petition with the following directions:
a. The petitioner will be allowed to write the Third Professional BAMS Degree supplementary (2012 scheme) November 2022, as a one time measure and without making it a precedent for any other reason; however, on condition that her results will be published only after she clears the First and Second Phase of the said Course.
b. I clarify that I have not spoken about the rights of the NCISM to issue any orders or instructions to the University or to the petitioner on the basis of her applicable Regulations; and all such are left open, concomitant by reserving legally available rights to the petitioner, to deal with any such.
After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Standing Counsel for the KUHS, submitted that it may be clarified that if the petitioner does not clear the First and Second Phases in terms of the liberty granted afore, the Third Phase Examinations taken by them would stand cancelled. I do not propose to make an affirmative declaration to such effect, but leave it to the KUHS to take an appropriate decision on this, at the relevant time.