Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
16. 07.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Writ Appeal(MD)No.162 of 2015 M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 Tmt.H.R.Thoulath Hanan ... Appellant Vs. 1)The Holy Cross College, represented by the Principal, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District-629 004. 2)Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, represented by the Registrar, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012. ... Respondents Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.1870 of 2015 dated 27.02.2015. !For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ^For R1 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For R2 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s.Ajmal Associates :
ORDER(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Inter-religious marriage between the appellant, a Muslim girl student, pursuing B.A. English Literature degree course, final year, in Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, and Mr.A.L.Ajas, a teacher belonging to Christian religion, has resulted in filing of a writ petition, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Principal, Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, to allow the appellant, to complete her B.A English Literature degree course and to issue necessary certificates.
2. Case of the appellant is that she belongs to Muslim Backward Class community. Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, is an Autonomous college, affiliated with Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli. She has secured 462 marks out of 500 in Xth Standard and 1025 marks out of 1200 in Standard XII. She joined B.A. English Literature degree course, in Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, in the academic year 2011-12. She has secured good marks, in all the semesters, without any arrears and when she was undergoing VIth and final semester, she fell in love with one A.L.Ajas, belonging to Christian religion. Marriage between them was solemnized on 27.11.2014, to the dislike of her parents. She was under threat of dire consequences. Therefore, between 27.11.2014 and 03.12.2014, she could not attend the college. Family members of the husband accepted the marriage. Therefore, on 04.12.2014, the appellant went to the college, along with her husband.
3. Though the appellant approached the college, to continue her 6th semester B.A English Literature degree course, her request was not accepted. Therefore, she was constrained to send a letter, dated 23.01.2015, to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, stating that the Principal of Holy Cross College, has refused to permit her, to attend the college. In the representation, dated 23.01.2015, addressed to the Collector, she has also stated that despite her in-laws and husband requesting the Principal, Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, to permit her to continue her studies, the same was turned down and hence, there was violation of her rights. She has requested the District Collector to intervene and take action. Representation to the District Collector though acknowledged, there was no response. Lawyer's notice dated 23.01.2015 was also sent to Principal of Holy Cross College, Nagercoil District.
4. Responding to the latter, Principal Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, has sent a reply dated 28.01.2015, stating that the appellant remained absent, without any reason from 27.11.2014, and one week later, she came to the college with a person on 04.12.2014 and informed the Principal that she had married the said person and on account of the same, her parents have threatened her.
5. In the reply dated 28.01.2015, Principal, Holy Cross College has further stated that after accepting the explanation and threat to life and inasmuch Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, is an institution for women and as the college has to maintain its sovereignty, discipline and reputation and considering the obligation of the students and parents, to adhere to the regulations and indicating that the conduct of the appellant was contrary to the above, appellant was granted permission, to re-do the course, which the appellant and the person accompanied her, agreed and left the college. According to the Principal, Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, no unparliamentary words were used against the appellant and taking the advice of the Principal, they left the college.
6. Principal, Holy Cross College(Autonomous), Nagercoil, in her reply notice dated 28.01.2015, has further added that the college had received a Mercy Petition from Mrs.Lourdhu Mary Assisi Francis. In order to cause disrepute to the institution and damage its sovereignty, a Lawyer's notice dated 23.01.2015, has been issued, containing false averments.
7. In the reply dated 28.01.2015, Principal, Holy Cross College(Autonomous), Nagercoil, has further stated that conduct of the appellant, in causing legal notice, dated 23.01.2015, is motivated. She has also added that instead of correcting herself of the misconduct, disobedience, the appellant has threatened the institution. On the above facts, appellant has sought for the relief as stated supra.
8. Principal, Holy Cross College(Autonomous), Nagercoil, in her counter affidavit, has submitted that the college was established and administered by the Congregation of the Sisters of the Cross of Chavanod. It is under the religious jurisdiction of Roman Catholic Bishop of Kottar Diocese. It is the first woman college inaugurated on 02.08.1965 at Kanyakumari District, affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli.
9. She has further submitted that students of the college are bound by the guidelines, issued by the college, from time to time. Prospectus would categorically stipulate that the student has to pay the semester fee, within ten working days from the re-opening day. Students have to remit fees, through the Central Bank of India. Though the appellant was aware of the same and paid the fees for the previous semesters, in time, she has failed to do so, for the 6th Semester.
10. Principal, Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, has further submitted that 6th semester classes started on 24.11.2014 and ended on 07.04.2015. The Semester consisted of 90 days attendance. Appellant failed to attend the classes for the 6th semester from the beginning. Therefore, they were under the impression that the appellant had left the college, on her own will. That being so, on 04.12.2014, the appellant came to the college, with one person, and informed them that she has married him. She also stated that she was under life threat. When the appellant appeared and explained the cause, considering her position, life threat from her family members and other Muslim organisations, Principal of the college accepted her request, to permit her to redo the 6th semester in the next academic year. Thereafter, one Mrs.Lourthu Mary Assisi Francis sent a requisition, to permit the appellant, to continue her studies. She was suitably instructed, when she met the Principal. Lourthu Assisi Francis, sent an application, on 15.12.2014, under the Right to Information Act. However, no request was made by the appellant till 23.01.2015 and that she did not take any steps, to remit the fees for the 6th semester.
11. While things stood thus, to the shock and surprise, a legal notice, dated 23.01.2015, was sent to the college, containing unparliamentary words. Stories were concocted. A suitable reply was give to the lawyer's notice.
12. Final year examinations for the 6th semester was scheduled to commence from 16.03.2014. Two internal examinations out of three, were already over. Group project work was also completed by other students. Though the appellant was aware of the same, she did not attend the internal examination, nor participated in the project work along with other students. Principal has further stated that maintenance of character and good conduct of the students, are the foremost objectives of the college.
13. While denying the averments made in paragraph 7 of the supporting affidavit, the college has stated that the appellant got married only on 29.12.2014 and before that, her status was nothing but elopement, which is against the rules and regulations of the college. Principal, Holy Cross College, has denied the submission of the appellant that she got married on 27.11.2014. Principal has stated that the appellant was advised to continue the course, in the next academic year and she accepted the same. Principal has denied the contention that the appellant was prevented from entering the college.
14. Principal, Holy Cross College, has further stated that as per the University Regulations, one should possess 75% of attendance to sit for the examination. Appellant has no attendance at all and not paid the 6th semester fees. She has not attended the internal examinations and group project work. For the reasons stated above, College has opposed the relief sought for.
15. Adverting to the above pleadings and submissions and by observing as to why the appellant had kept quiet, and not approached the court, within a reasonable time, if there was a refusal by the Principal, Holy Cross College on 04.12.2014 and accepting the contention of the 1st respondent college that the appellant had not attended the 6th semester from the beginning and even if she was permitted to attend the classes, from the date of passing of the order, she would not satisfy the required attendance, so as to enable her to take up 6th semester examination, for which, classes commenced on 24.11.2014 and came to an end on 07.04.2015, vide order dated 27.02.2015 W.P(MD)No.1870 of 2015, Writ Court, held that the appellant is not entitled to the relief sought for, however, permitted her, to re-do the course, in the next academic year. Assailing the correctness of the said order, writ appeal has been filed.
16. Inviting the attention of this Court, to the marks secured in the school, and B.A. English Literature degree semester examinations, Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that all along the appellant was a meritorious student and secured high marks, both in schooling and upto 5th Semester Examinations in B.A English degree course, and that she had been attending the classes regularly, until 27.11.2014 when she married Mr.A.L.Ajas, a teacher belonging to Christian Religion. As the marriage was inter-religious, her parents and relatives disliked the same and due to threat, she could not attend the college from 27.11.2014. Finally, when the in-laws accepted the inter-religious marriage, she went to the college with her husband A.L.Ajas and since then, she was denied permission to attend the class. On the aspect, as to how, the appellant is a meritorious student and pursued her B.A., Degree course, upto 5th Semester, attention was invited to the marks secured by her.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant categorically denied the contention that the appellant accepted to re-do the course in the next year. According to him, when the personal problem was resolved and when the in-laws have accepted the marriage, no student would be willing to waste one academic year.
18. It is also his contention that had the appellant been allowed to attend the classes, atleast from 27.11.2014, she would have had the required attendance to take up the 6th Semester and final Semester examination. When permission was not given by the College, appellant was constrained to make a representation, dated 23.01.2015, to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District. It is the grievance of the appellant that though the said representation was acknowledged by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, no action was taken. Left with no other alternative, the appellant had to approach a lawyer for assistance.
19. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the contents of lawyer's notice, would have probably aggravated the situation, which resulted in the College, taking a hard stand against the appellant and only after receipt of the lawyer's notice, dated 23.01.2015, the College had taken a stand that it was the appellant, who had volunteered to re-do the course, in the next academic year. Inviting the attention of this Court to the reply, dated 28.01.2015, he submitted that it was the College, which has prevented the appellant from attending the classes, on the premise that its sovereignty, discipline and reputation of the College, would be affected, by the conduct of the appellant.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited the attention of this Court to the undated letter of Mrs.Lourthu Mary, mother-in-law of the appellant, addressed to the Principal, The Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, to show mercy on the appellant. He also added that though right from the beginning, the appellant has been requesting the College to permit her to attend the last and final semester classes, it was denied by the College and only in January'2015, a reply has been given to the lawyer's notice, despite representation, dated 23.01.2015, addressed to the District Collector, Kanyakumari and that the College has not even considered the prayer of the appellant's mother-in-law. For the abovesaid reasons, he submitted that it was not the fault of the appellant in not attending the classes, but she was denied permission.
21. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, filed by the Principal, The Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for the 1st respondent further submitted that the Writ Court has adverted to the facts and found that the student was at fault and there is no need to reverse the impugned order. It is also his contention that the appellant has not remitted fees, through the Bank, which is very much within the premises of the College.
22. Replying to the above, Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that unless and until, the College authorities permit the appellant to pay the fees, it is not possible for her, to remit the same and thus, there was a refusal on the part of the College Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
23. The first contention to be addressed, is whether, the appellant was really meritorious, through out her studies, until she faced the problems, because of the inter-religious marriage. The appellant belongs to Muslim Most Backward Community and Mr.A.L.Ajas, belongs to Christian Religion. The appellant had studied 10th Standard in St.Antony's Higher Secondary School, Kanniyakumari and secured 462 marks, out of 500 marks. In the Higher Secondary Course, she had secured 1025 marks, out of 1200 marks. After joining B.A. (English) Literature in Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, she had secured the following marks, evidencing good academic record. Month & Year: November'2012 MAXIMUM MARKS MARKS SECURED SEMESTER TITLE OF THE SUBJECT PART CREDIT ESE CIA TOTAL ESE CIA TOTAL GRADE RESULT1Tamil I30 75 25 100 60 20 80 D+ P1English II30 75 25 100 61 21 82 D+ P1Poetry III40 75 25 100 47 19 66 A P1Social History of England III50 75 25 100 40 19 59 B P1English through Language Lab (Skill Based Course) IV20 60 40 100 53 38 91 O P1Mathematics for Life ?. I (Non Major Elective Course) IV20 75 25 100 75 23 98 O P Passing minimum :
40. of the Maximum Marks (in ESE and Total separately), P: PASS, RA: Re-appear, AAA: Absent, *** Not secured passing minimum, ESE: End Semester Examination, CIA: Continuous Internal Assessment. Month & Year: April' 2013 MAXIMUM MARKS MARKS SECURED SEMESTER TITLE OF THE SUBJECT PART CREDIT ESE CIA TOTAL ESE CIA TOTAL GRADE RESULT2Tamil I30 75 25 100 56 20 76 D P2English II30 75 25 100 56 18 74 A+ P2Modern English Grammar and Composition III50 75 25 100 53 19 72 A+ P2Literary Forms and Terms III50 75 25 100 48 17 65 A P2Computer Literacy (Skill Based Course) IV20 60 40 100 54 30 84 D+ P2Mathematics for Life ?. I (Non Major Elective Course) IV20 75 25 100 70 19 89 D+ P Passing minimum :
40. of the Maximum Marks (in ESE and Total separately), P: PASS, RA: Re-appear, AAA: Absent, *** Not secured passing minimum, ESE: End Semester Examination, CIA: Continuous Internal Assessment. Month & Year: November' 2013 MAXIMUM MARKS MARKS SECURED SEMESTER TITLE OF THE SUBJECT PART CREDIT ESE CIA TOTAL ESE CIA TOTAL GRADE RESULT3Tamil I30 75 25 100 70 17 87 D+ P3English II30 75 25 100 55 21 76 D P3Non fiction III40 75 25 100 56 18 74 A+ P3Indian Literature in English III40 75 25 100 54 17 71 A+ P3History of English Literature III20 75 25 100 50 17 67 A P3Dawn to Dusk Mathematics (Skill Based Course) IV20 60 40 100 60 34 94 O P Passing minimum :
40. of the Maximum Marks (in ESE and Total separately), P: PASS, RA: Re-appear, AAA: Absent, *** Not secured passing minimum, ESE: End Semester Examination, CIA: Continuous Internal Assessment. Month & Year: April' 2014 MAXIMUM MARKS MARKS SECURED SEMESTER TITLE OF THE SUBJECT PART CREDIT ESE CIA TOTAL ESE CIA TOTAL GRADE RESULT4Tamil I30 75 25 100 63 22 85 D+ P4English II30 75 25 100 64 21 85 D+ P4Drama III50 75 25 100 51 20 71 A+ P4Fiction III40 75 25 100 51 20 71 A+ P4Literary Critism-I III50 75 25 100 38 19 57 B P4Group Discussion (Skill Based Course) IV20 60 40 100 57 36 93 O P Passing minimum :
40. of the Maximum Marks (in ESE and Total separately), P: PASS, RA: Re-appear, AAA: Absent, *** Not secured passing minimum, ESE: End Semester Examination, CIA: Continuous Internal Assessment. Month & Year: November' 2014 MAXIMUM MARKS MARKS SECURED SEMESTER TITLE OF THE SUBJECT PART CREDIT ESE CIA TOTAL ESE CIA TOTAL GRADE RESULT5Literary Criticism-II III50 75 25 100 49 22 71 A+ P5Shakespeare III50 75 25 100 60 20 80 D+ P5Short Stories III40 75 25 100 52 17 69 A P5Spoken English Theory and Practice (Elective-I) III50 75 25 100 60 23 83 D+ P5South Indian Fiction in Translation (Elective-II) III50 75 25 100 46 21 67 A P5Public Speaking (Skill Based Course) IV20 60 40 100 34 36 70 A+ P5Environmental Studies IV20 75 25 100 34 23 57 B P Passing minimum :
40. of the Maximum Marks (in ESE and Total separately), P: PASS, RA: Re-appear, AAA: Absent, *** Not secured passing minimum, ESE: End Semester Examination, CIA: Continuous Internal Assessment.
24. Having regard to the marks obtained in the School and Collegiate Education, upto 5th Semester, there cannot be any contrary view that all along, the appellant has done well in her studies. Inter-religious love and marriage with Mr.A.L.Ajas, a teacher belonging to Christian religion, is the cause for disruption of study.
25. According to the appellant, she married Mr.A.L.Ajas, on 27.11.2014, to the dislike of her parents. As per her version, she was under threat from her side and therefore, between 27.11.2014 and 03.12.2014, she could not attend the college, till the family members of her husband, accepted the marriage. Therefore, on 04.12.2014, she went to the college, along with her husband, Mr.A.L.Ajas and requested the Principal to allow her to attend the 6th Semester classes. Though she continuously approached the College, there was no response and therefore, she was constrained to send a representation to the District Collector, Kanyakumari, on 23.01.2014, which is reproduced hereunder:- ?.kDjhuuhfpa ehd;. vdJ fzth;. khkpahh; kw;Wk; khkdhh; Mfpnahh; FoapUf;Fk; nkw;go Kftupapy; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/ ehd; uhkd;g[J}h; mUfpYs;s ncwhyp fpuh!; fy;Y}hpapy; gp/V/ M';fpyk;. K:d;whk; Mz;L ,Wjpg; gUtj; njh;t[ gapd;W ehd; rpWghd;ik rK:fj;ijr; rhh;e;j xU K!;ypk; MFk;/ ehd; 27 etk;gh; 2014 md;W bghl;lhuk; gj;jpug; gjpt[ mYtyfj;jpy; bghpnahh;fshy; elj;jpitf;fg;gl;l vdJ jpUkzj;ijg; gjpt[bra;a vdJ fztUld; kDbra;a brd;wpUe;jjhy; md;iwa ehspy; vd;dhy; fy;Y}hpf;F bry;y Koatpy;iy/ ehd; fy;Y}hpf;Fr; brd;wnghJ nkw;go vjph;kDjhuh; eP fy;Y}hpapy; gof;Fk;nghJ vg;go jpUkzk; bra;J bfhs;syhk; vdr; brhy;yp vd;id mrp';fkhf jpl;odhh; vdJ khkdhh;. khkpahh; kw;Wk; fzth; te;J ngrpagpwFk; vd;id fy;Y}hpy; nrh;f;f vjph;kDjhuh; kWj;Jtpl;lhh;/ ,jdhy; vd;dhy; bjhlh;e;J vdJ gog;ig bjhlu Koahj R{H;epiy Vw;gl;Ls;sJ/ ehd;. kduPjpahft[k; cly;uPjpahft[k; kpFe;j ghjpg;gpw;F cs;shfpa[s;nsd;/ vdnt. j';fs; rK:fk;. ehd; fy;Y}hpg; gog;ig Kog;gjw;F ,d;Dk; K:d;W khj';fs; kl;Lnk ,Uf;Fk; epiyapy; vd;id ntz;Lbkd;nw gof;f tplhky; nkw;go vjph;kDjhuh; jil tpjpj;J vdJ fy;Y}hpg; go;gig rPuHpf;f KaYtJ ,e;jpa murpay; rhrdj;jhy; Fokf;fSf;F cWjpr; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s fy;tpf;fhd mog;gil chpikia kPWtjhft[k;. kdpjt[hpik kPwyhft[k; cs;sjhy; cldoahf ,t;tpraj;jpy; jiyapl;L fy;Y}hp Kjy;th; kPJ eltof;if vLj;J kl;Lkpd;wp vdJ fy;Y}hpg; gog;ig ehd; bjhlh;e;J goj;jpl Mtd bra;ak;go ntz;Lfpnwd;/?.
26. The abovesaid representation has been acknowledged on 23.01.2015, by the District Collector, Kanyakumari. Had the appellant been permitted to attend the classes, by the College, there was absolutely no reason, for the appellant, to vindicate her grievance to the District Administration. In the said representation, she has not referred to any unparliamentary words, against the Principal of the College. She has only stated that when she went to the College, the Principal questioned her, as to how, she could marry, while studying in the College. She has also specifically stated that despite her in-laws and her husband, requesting the College authorities to permit her to continue the studies, it was not done. Expressing her right to continue studies, she has requested the Collector, Kanyakumari District to intervene and sought for a direction against the Principal of the College and make necessary arrangements, enabling her to continue the college studies.
27. Thus, the version of the appellant that she was prevented from attending the classes, is supported by the representation, dated 23.01.2015, addressed to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District.
28. In the reply notice, dated 28.01.2015, the College has admitted that the appellant had attended the Office on 04.12.2014, along with a person, claiming himself to be her husband. Version of the college, in the reply notice, dated 28.01.2015, is that they accepted the explanation of the appellant and also pointed out that there is a threat to her life. As the Institution has to protect its sovereignty, discipline and reputation, rules and regulations of the College have to be followed by the students and parents, and since the conduct of the appellant was contrary to the above, she was given permission to re-do the course, in the next year, which the appellant and the person accompanying her, agreed to the same. Relevant portion of the reply notice, pertinent to the views and the action taken by the College, is extracted hereunder: ?.c';fs; fl;rpapd; jd;dpiy tpsf;fj;ij ehd; vw;Wf;bfhz;L mth;fspd; thH;f;iff;F Vw;gl;oUf;Fk; mr;RWj;jiy Rl;of; fhl;oa[k; bgz; ghyUf;fhd fy;tp epWtdk; vd;w tifapy; v';fs; fy;Y}hpapd; ,iwahz;ik. XGf;fk; kw;Wk; ew;bgaUf;F fs';fk; vw;glhky; ,Uf;Fk; tz;zk; khztpfs; nrh;f;ifapd; nghJ khztpah; kw;Wk; mth;fspd; bgw;nwhh;fSf;F v';fs; fy;Y}hp tpjpKiwfis gpd;gw;w ntz;oajd; mtrpaj;ij bjhpag;gLj;jpa[s;sija[k; mjw;F Kuzhf c';fs; fl;rpapd; eltof;iffs; ,Ug;gij Rl;of; fhl;o mLj;j fy;tpahz;oy; mth; bjhlh;e;J fy;tp gapy mDkjpaspj;jij mtUk; mtUld; te;j egUk; Vw;Wf;bfhz;L brd;wdh; vd;gij jtpu j';fs; mwptpg;gpy; fz;Ls;sthW mrp';fkhf vt;tpj thh;j;ijfSk; ngrp j';fs; fl;rpia tpul;ltpy;iy/?.
29. A close scrutiny of the abovesaid words clearly indicate that the College had accepted the explanation of the appellant, in not attending the class from 27.11.2014. The College has pointed out the threat in the life. But the important aspects which weighed in the mind of the College, are ?.The College is meant for girls. Sovereignty, Discipline and Reputation of the College, should not be affected. Even at the time of admission, both the students and parents, were sufficiently informed that they should adhere to the College Rules, but the conduct of the appellant was contrary to the rules and hence, the College granted permission to the appellant to re-do the course in the next year.?.
30. From the reply, it could be deduced that the aspect of threat has been taken note of. All other factors taken into consideration by the College are to protect the Institutional reputation. Conduct of the appellant in solemnizing marriage, during her studies, has been observed as contrary to the Rules and the likelihood of disrepute to the Institution, sovereignty and discipline appear to be the main reasons and hence, the appellant was given permission to re-do the course. Thus, from the reading of the above, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant had volunteered herself to re-do the course, in the next academic year.
31. The next paragraph of the reply notice is general in nature, as to how, a couple had to lead their life in future. Yet another aspect to be considered is, when the college, in its reply, dated 28.01.2015, had stated that the appellant only wanted to re-do the course, in the next academic year, there is no reason, as to why, the College did not send any letter to the appellant from 4.12.2014 onwards.
32. Reply, dated 28.01.2015 of the College, also indicates that Mrs.Lourthu Mary Assisi, mother-in-law, has sent a mercy petition, to the Principal, Holy Cross College, Nagercoil and requested continuation of study by the appellant. Mercy petition, enclosed at Page No.17 of the typed set of papers, is reproduced hereunder: ?.j';fs; fy;Y}hpapy; ,s';fiy (M';fpyk;) K:d;whk; Mz;L ,Wjpg;gUtk; fy;tp gapd;W tUk; H.R.bjsyj; bcwdhd; vdJ kfd; V/vy;/m$h!; vd;ghhpd; kidtpahths; flt[spd; jpl;lg;gonah. vd;dnth vd; kfDk; mtSk; xUtUf;bfhUth; kpft[k; tpUk;gpa fhuzj;jhy; je;ijahhpd; miuFiw kdj;Jld;. Mdhy;; jhahh; kw;Wk; cwtpdh; KG tpUg;gj;Jld; gjpt[j; jpUkzk; bra;Jbfhz;lhh;fs;/ nuhkd; fj;njhypf;f kjj;ijr; nrh;e;j jh';fs; jw;nghJ g';Ff;FUthdth; xg;g[jYld; fpwpj;jt njthyaj;jpy; Kiwg;go "hd!;ehdk; bfhLj;J jpUkzr;rl';ifr; bra;atpUf;Fk; epiyapy; ,jid mwpj;Jbfhz;l bjsyj;jpd; je;ijahh; ,!;yhk; kjj;jpy; vdJ kfd; ,ize;jhy; mth;fsJ jpUkzj;ij m';fPfhpg;gjhff; TwpapUf;fpwhh; ,iwkfd; ,naRnt v';fsJ je;ij vd vz;zpf;bfhz;oUf;fpw eh';fs; ,jw;F cld;glhj fhuzj;jhy; j';fisj; bjhlh;g[bfhz;L bjsyj;jpd; fy;tpiaj; bjhlu jh';fs; mDkjpf;ff;TlhJ vdf; nfl;Lf;bfhz;ljhf mwpe;njhk; kjj;jpd; bgauhy; jd; kdij khw;wpf;bfhz;l je;ijahhpd; bray; v';fSf;F kl;Lky;yhJ nfs;tpg;gl;l vy;nyhUf;Fnk kpFe;j kd ntjidia mspj;jJ/ fy;tpf;Fj; jil brhy;gtd; flt[Sf;F btWg;ghdtd; vd tptypak; TWfpwJ vj;jidjhd; nfhgk; ,Ue;jhYk; bgw;w kfs; v';fpUe;jhYk; ed;whapUf;fl;Lk; vdf; fUjhky; vy;yhk; flt[spd; rpj;jk; vd vz;zp kdij njw;wpf;bfhz;oUf;fpw v';fisg; nghyt[k; ,y;yhky; kjj;ijf; fhuzk; fhl;o kfs; gog;igf;bfLf;Fk; je;ijapd; bray; j';fSf;Fk; epr;rak; gpof;fhJ vdf; fUJfpnwd;/ Kjy; kdpjd; Mjhkpd; rhjp. vd;d?.?.kjk; vd;d?. bjhpahJ/ mtuJ tHpj;njhd;wy;fshd ehk; kl;Lk; ,j;jifa jtWfis Vd; bra;a ntz;Lk;?. Kidth; gl;lk; bgw;W fy;Y}hp Kjy;tuhft[k; jpwk;glr;brayhw;Wfpd;wj; jha[s;sk; bfhz;l jh';fs; gog;gjw;F Mh;tk; bfhz;l khztpia Fwpg;ghf ,s';fiyf; filrpg;gUtj;jpy; epw;Fk; xU ViHg; bgz;Qqf;F ,u';fhypUf;fKoa[kh?. md;igg; nghjpj;j ,naRfpwp!;Jtpd; tHpapy; jd;id KGikahf 33. Reading of the above, also shows that with all prayers and earnest request, the above mercy petition has been made to the Principal, Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, to permit the appellant to continue her studies. The relevant portion of the reply notice is as follows: ?.mjd; gpd;dh; jpUkjp/Y}hh;Jnkhp mrp!p vd;ghhplkpUe;J j';fs; fl;rpapd; khkpahh; vd fUiz kD xd;W mDg;gl;Ls;sJk; mjd; gpd;dh; mrp!pgpuhd;rp!; vd;gtuhy; tpsf;fk; ntz;o jfty; mwpa[k; chpik rl;lj;jpd; fPH; kD rkh;g;gpf;fg;gl;L chpa gjpy; mDg;gg;gLtjw;F Kd;ghf j';fspd; fl;rpahy; 23/01/2015k; jpajpapl;L xU fojk; mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJkhFk;/?. 34. Thus, from the reply, dated 28.01.2015, another fact, which is candidly admitted by the College is that after 04.12.2014, Mrs.Lourthu Mary Assisi, mother-in-law, has also requested the Principal of Holy Cross College, to permit the appellant to continue the course. Mrs.Lourthu Mary Assisi, mother-in-law, has ventilated the grievance of the appellant and prayed for ?.Mercy?.. Receipt of the application under the RTI Act, sent by Mr.Assisi Francis is also admitted. 35. From the materials on record, it is also deduced that the appellant has addressed a letter, dated 23.01.2015, to the District Collector, Kanyakumari. Vide proceedings No.V2/3996/2015, dated 11.02.2015, the same seemed to have been forwarded to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli, who in turn, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2041/U3/2015, dated 24.02.2015, has sought for explanation from Holy Cross College, Nagercoil. 36. Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, had given an explanation, dated 28.02.2015, to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli, admitting that in order to protect the sovereignty, discipline and reputation of the College and since the conduct of the appellant was contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the College, the appellant was permitted to re-do the course in the next academic year, which the appellant and her husband, agreed. 37. Even this reply, addressed to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli, does not indicate that the appellant had volunteered to redo the course in the next academic year. Here again, the College has admitted the receipt of the representation of Mrs.Lourthu Mary Assisi, mother-in-law of the appellant, and the application, under the Right to Information Act. Conduct of the appellant, according to the College, was contrary to the rules and regulations. 38. Right from 04.12.2014, the appellant, her husband, and her mother-in-law, have been representing to the College, as well as to the District Collector, Kanyakumari. College, indisputably has been maintaining the stand that the conduct of the appellant was contrary to the rules and regulations. Another factor which, we could visualise is that usage of unpalatable words in the notice, dated 23.01.2015, would have aggravated the situation. All along, parties have been only ventilating their grievance, indicating refusal by the College to continue the studies. 39. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, unless the College gives the challan for payment of fees, Bank would not accept remittance. When the appellant was not even permitted to attend the College, it would be inappropriate to contend that the appellant ought to have paid the fee, for the 6th Semester, without there being any authorisation or permission from the College. 40. Thus, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that it was the college, which had not permitted the appellant to continue her studies, on the premises that her action to solemnize the marriage, during the course of study, amounted to contravention of the Rules and Regulation of the College and protection of sovereignty, discipline and reputation of the college, appeared to be the main concern. 41. Thus, from the above correspondences, it is evident that there was an inter-religious marriage on 27.11.2014, between the appellant, belonging to Muslim Most Backward Community and Mr.A.L.Ajas, belonging to Christian Religion. The appellant, who was under threat by her family members, could not attend the classes and thereafter, when her in-laws accepted the marriage, she had gone to the Holy Cross College, on 04.12.2014 and requested the Principal of the said College to permit her to attend the classes. But, as extracted from the reply notice, dated 28.01.2015, it was the College, who had prima facie found that the conduct of the appellant, in solemnizing the marriage, during studies, was contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the College and for the protection of sovereignty, discipline and reputation of the Institution, indicated the same to the appellant and contended that they have permitted her to re-do the course, in the next year. One such reason, taken note of, by the College, is threat to the couple. 42. During the course of arguments, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel for Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, submitted that it is not uncommon in the said college, that married students continue their studies. If that be the case, it is not known, as to why, the appellant was not permitted to continue her studies?. and why the College should state that her conduct in solemnizing the marriage, is against the rules and regulations of the College. 43. From the reply notice, dated 28.01.2015, extracted supra, we can only deduce that it may be the genuine intention of the Principal of Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, that a student should concentrate only in studies and should not indulge in any other activities, which is certainly appreciable, but marrying a person, during the course of study, cannot be construed as a misconduct, contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the College, affecting the reputation of the College and consequently, indiscipline among the students. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the College that married students are also studying in the College, then, whether love marriage between the spouses, could be construed as a misconduct to deny permission to pursue studies. If the parents of both had agreed for the marriage, during the course of studies, would the College, still construe the same as misconduct?. What is the mistake the appellant committed?. Inter religious marriage during study period much to the dislike of her parents. It is a personal issue in the family. Even taking it for granted, it is a mistake, we only wish to quote what Martin Luther King (Junior) said, even in the case of enemies. ?.We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. Let us also consider, what Dalai Lama said on Forgiveness. ?.All religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness. The important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.?. 44. Fact that a student had excelled academically, until marriage, cannot be disputed. Equally, there was nothing to indicate, either from the reply notice, dated 28.01.2015, or from the counter affidavit of the College that the student was irregular, at any point of time. 6th Semester of the College was started on 24.11.2014. The appellant married on 27.11.2014. Though the Constitution of India, speaks about equality, fraternity and that there shall not be any discrimination, on the basis of caste, creed or religion, intolerance in not accepting inter-religious or inter-caste marriage, in our society cannot be lost sight of. 45. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that inter-religious marriage, between the appellant and Mr.A.L.Ajas, evidently not being accepted by her parents has given rise to this problem. From the materials available on record, we do not find any request from the appellant to the College, to permit her to pursue the 6th Semester course, in the next academic year. On the contrary, there are adequate materials to support the contention of the appellant that inter-religious marriage was accepted by her in-laws. Her husband also accompanied her on 04.12.2014 to the College, which fact is also admitted by the College. 46. The fact that between 04.12.2014 and the reply notice, dated 28.01.2015 of the College, mother-in-law had sent a mercy petition, is also admitted by the College, for which, there is also no reply. 47. Thus, from the above, we are of the view that it was the College, which had not permitted the appellant, to continue the 6th Semester course. Despite the request made on 04.12.2014, the appellant was asked to re-do the course in the next academic year and accordingly, granted permission, for protecting the interest of the College and for the main reason that the conduct of the appellant was contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the College. 48. Though Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, submitted that the College had accepted the request of the appellant to continue her studies, during the next academic year, by re-doing the course and it was not College, who had prevented her, to attend the course, we are not in agreement with the abovesaid contention and at the risk of repetition, we reproduce a sentence from the reply notice, dated 28.01.2015, as follows: "mjw;F Kuzhf c';fs; fl;rpapd; eltof;iffs; ,Ug;gij Rl;of; fhl;o mLj;j fy;tpahz;oy; mth; bjhlh;e;J fy;tp gapy mDkjpaspj;jij mtUk; mtUld; te;j egUk; Vw;Wf;bfhz;L brd;wdh;.?. 49. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that there was no request to grant permission for re-do the course, in the next academic year. If that was the intention of the appellant, there was absolutely no need to send a representation, dated 23.01.2015, to the District Collector, Kanyakumari, for the relief, stated supra and that there was also no necessity for the mother-in-law of the appellant to send a mercy petition to the Principal, Holy Cross College, Nagercoil. 50. Though in normal circumstances, a Writ Court is not obligated to advert to factual contentions, to arrive at a finding, but, on the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the likelihood of loss of one academic year, to a student, who is all along been meritorious, but for the inter-religious marriage, not liked by some, has affected her studies and caused mental agony, we are inclined to extract a paragraph from a judgment, made in W.P(MD)No.10782 of 2006 dated 14.08.2012 (Paul Thankom vs. Secretary to Government Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai and six others), to which, one of us, is a party [Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Manikumar].. ''9.Nobody shuns a doctor, or staff or even an employee, who cleans up a patient, in a hospital, on the grounds of caste, creed or religion. Differences though exist, nobody would ever think of it. Blood transfused in a hospital is not segregated on the basis of caste, creed or religion. Nor the person who requires blood, would ever demand blood only from a person belonging to his caste, community, creed or religion. If for his survival and existence a person can consciously believe and accept that all are equal, irrespective of caste, creed, community or religion, then why this hatred and division. Organs are transplanted. Blood and body have no religion or caste. When the blood and organs of a Hindu can save a Muslim or vice versa or even a christian then why this intolerance. Is there not a similarity in 'Om', "Amen and "Ameen?.". All religions aim at the same destination. Forms and practices may differ. One should not forget that our glorious constitution enshrines, secularism, fraternity and equality. Unity in diversity is our strength.?. 51. The contention of Holy Cross College that the appellant had not paid the fees, despite the fact that the Bank was very much in the premises of the said College and the appellant, who does not have 1% of the attendance, is not eligible to take part in the examination and the further contention that she does satisfy the requirement of project work, also cannot be countenanced. College is directed to allow the appellant to do the project work. 52. Before parting with the case, we wish to consider, what 'Holy Cross' means. ?.Holy Cross is a symbol of the atonement and reminds Christians of God's love in sacrificing his own son for humanity. It represents Jesus Victory over sin and death, since it is believed that through his death and resurrection he conquered death itself.?. 53. Vide order, dated 20.04.2015, we granted permission to the respondents, to permit the appellant to write 6th Semester examinations, for B.A. English Degree Course and the results have been withheld. In the light of the above, the Holy Cross College, Nagercoil, is further directed to permit the appellant to undergo the Project Work, as required and consequently, publish the results of the 6th Semester examination, along with others. 54. Keeping in mind, the discussion and observations, keeping in mind what 'Holy Cross' means, it is sincerely believed that the College, which bears the name 'Holy Cross' would consider the plight of a meritorious student and act as per the directions. The Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. .