N.ANIRUDHAN.MLA v. STATE OF KERALA

BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.BANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

#2. KERALA UNIVERSITY, REP.BY REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

#3. PRINCIPAL, TD MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA P.O.

#4. DR.DOLIS, CHIEF EXAMINER, FINAL YEAR MBBS CLINICAL EXAMINATION, DURING 2000-2002 KERALA UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, TD MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA.

#5. DR.RAMAKRISHNAN, EXTERNAL EXAMINER, RESIDING AT PADMASREE, POTHUGANAM LANE, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

#6. DR.SUJATHAN, INTERNAL EXAMINER, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR R6 BY ADV.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 2077 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The son of the appellant 'decided' to bid farewell to this world on 3.4.2002 and committed suicide, allegedly due to harassment at the hands of respondents 5 and 6; which in turn was required to be compensated by the appellant by filing W.P.(C) No.39424 of 2003.

#2. The case projected in the writ petition was that the son of the appellant who was a final year MBBS student in the T.D.Medical College Alappuzha during the academic year 2001-02 appeared for the Medicine Practical Clinical examination in the forenoon on 3.4.2002, but did not appear for the oral examination in the afternoon and was found missing. Thereafter, on 7.4.2002, he was found dead in a lodge at Ukkadam, near Coimbatore. A case of unnatural death was registered as Crime No.129 of 2002 in the South Police Station, Alappuzha. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner W.A.No.2077 of 2009 - 2 - was that his son was harassed to the maximum by the examiners, namely the respondents 5 and 6, and it was because of the said incident that the boy was compelled to quit the examination held in the afternoon and commit suicide. Reliance was sought to be placed on Exts.P3 and P5 reports, wherein some reference is made with regard to the conduct of the 5th respondent. The matter was considered at length by the learned Single Judge, who observed that, but for Exts.P3 and P5, there was absolutely no material or evidence before the Court to arrive at a conclusion that the suicide committed by the son of the appellant/petitioner was because of the harassment at the hands of respondents 5 and 6. It was also observed that, eventhough the 6th respondent supported the version of the writ petitioner initially, he backed out later. It is further mentioned therein that Ext.P3 suggested further enquiry and in the absence of any further material, no positive finding could be arrived at, so as to award damages against respondents 5 and 6. Accordingly, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed, which in turn forms the subject matter of this writ appeal.

#3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the W.A.No.2077 of 2009 - 3 - learned Senior Government Pleader for the first respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent University, at length and also on going through the materials on record, this Court finds that there is no convincing evidence so as to substantiate the averments made by the appellant to arrive at a conclusion that the suicide committed by the son of the appellant was because of the harassment by the external examiner, i.e. the 5th respondent. This is a matter which requires to be substantiated by raising specific pleadings and adducing evidence before the appropriate forum. In the said circumstances, we find no tenable ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the appellant to approach other appropriate forum, if otherwise sustainable in law. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge