IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 11035 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHILU VARGHESE, SEETHAL, KARIMTHOTTUVA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. (STUDENT OF M.B.A.COURSE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY). BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. ALBERTIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM FOR R2 SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 11035/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION. P2. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.21.4.07. P3. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.21.4.07 FOR ADVANCE OF RS.10,000/- P4. COPY OF THE RANK LIST DTD.25.8.07. P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.28.1.08. P6. COPY OF THE MARKLIST DTD.25.8.07 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. P7. COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE DTD.28.3.08. P8. COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD.15.4.08 BY R2. P9. COPY OF THE IDENTIFY CARD ISSUED FROM R2. P10. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.11.6.08 TO R2. P11. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.9.7.08. P12. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROSPECTUS. P13. COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE DETAILS. P14. COPY OF THE REPORT OF INTERNAL ASSESSMENT TEST. P15 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.8.7.08 BY R2. P16. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF SHORTAGE OF ATTENDANCE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.13.6.08 BY R2. R1(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.25.5.08 BY R1 TO R2. R1(C) COPY OF THE MARKLIST OF 6TH SEMESTER EXAM. R2-1 COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.15.4.08. R2-2 COPY OF THE SPECIAL CERTIFICATE DTD.28.3.08 OF UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. R2-3 COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.29.1.08. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.11035 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a candidate who got admission to M.B.A. Course of the Mahatma Gandhi University in the 2nd respondent institution in the academic year 2007-08. She is now faced with a situation wherein she is to lose her admission on the ground that she did not produce the pass certificate in the qualifying examination before the cut off date prescribed by the University for completing admission for the academic year 2007-08. Admittedly, the petitioner could not produce the pass certificate at least till 24.1.2008. Therefore, the petitioner was not permitted to attend classes from 24.1.2008 onwards. The petitioner submits that the petitioner passed the examination much prior to 24.1.2008 and only because of the delay on the part of the Kerala University, from which she passed the qualifying examination, in issuing the provisional certificate, that the delay occurred. According to her, another student studying in the very same class was given the benefit of w.p.c.11038/08 2 regularisation of admission although he also did not produce the pass certificate within the stipulated period. However, the petitioner submits that under Statute 14(I)(v)(b) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, the Vice Chancellor of the University has power to regularise such admission in deserving cases. On these contentions, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the entire records leading upto Exhibit P6 and P7 and; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the 1st and 2nd Semester Examinations of M.B.A. Course of M.G. University. (iii) to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue her studies for the M.B.A. Course as a regular student.” 2. The University as well as the Principal of the 2nd respondent college has filed counter affidavits. The University in their counter affidavit categorically asserts that in all the colleges for the year 2007-08, for admission to MBA course, the last date stipulated by the University for completing admission was 29.9.2007. According to the University, in so far as the petitioner passed the qualifying examination in full only in November, 2007, the admission of the petitioner is not only irregular but also illegal. The Principal does not specifically state w.p.c.11038/08 3 as to what is the last date stipulated for admission. But during the arguments, the counsel appearing for the Principal would contend that according to him also, 29.9.2007 is the cut of date prescribed by the University for completing all admissions for the year 2007-08. 3. The petitioner, relying on paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent would contend that according to the Principal, the cut off date is 24.1.2008. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The only question I am called upon to decide is as to whether the petitioner had the requisite qualification for admission to the course as on the cut off date prescribed for closing admission for the year 2007-08. In order to substantiate that the cut off date fixed is 24.1.2008, the petitioner would rely on paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, which reads thus: “7. As the revaluation was not done before that date, evidently on her failure to attend the university for scrutiny, as seen from Exhibit P5, she could not appear for 1st semester examination. From 24.1.2008 the petitioner was not attending the classes, i.e. from the last date of registration and remittance of 1st semester examination fees.” w.p.c.11038/08 4 After going through the said paragraph, I am not satisfied that the 2nd respondent has said that the cut off date prescribed for admission for the year 2007-08 is 24.1.2008. On the other hand, what I understand from the above sentences is 24.1.2008 was the last date for registration and remittance of fees for the first semester examination of the course. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the cut off date prescribed for admission for the academic year is 24.1.2008. That leaves us with the other date, viz., 29.9.2007. The University in their counter affidavit has categorically stated that the cut of date prescribed for closing admission for the year 2007-08 is 29.9.2007. The counsel for the 2nd respondent also subscribes to the same view during arguments. In the absence of any other material to show otherwise, I have to accept the contention of the University that 29.9.2007 is the last date. Logically also it can only be so since even the petitioner admits that the classes for the course started in June 2007. For a course which started in June 2007 the last date for closing admission could not have been 24.1.2008 by any stretch of imagination. In fact 24.1.2008 is the date fixed for registration for the first w.p.c.11038/08 5 semester examination of the course itself. In the above circumstances, I accept the contention of the University and the 2nd respondent that the last date prescribed for closing admission for M.B.A. Course in the Mahatma Gandhi University for the year 2007-08 was 29.9.2007. 6. The next question that would arise is as to whether the petitioner had the requisite qualifications for admission to M.B.A. Course before 29.9.2007 at least. The petitioner himself admits that she passed one paper of the qualifying examination only in November, 2007. That being so, without any doubt it is clear that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for admission for the year 2007-08 as on the last date prescribed for completing admission, viz., 29.9.2007. That being so, the petitioner was clearly not eligible to get admission to M.B.A. Course in the Mahatma Gandhi University for the year 2007-08. 7. I also do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that as per Statute 14(I)(v)(b) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, the Vice Chancellor has power to regularise admission of this kind. The said statute reads thus: w.p.c.11038/08 6 “(b) to sanction admission to candidates in deserving cases who could not apply for admission within the time-schedule fixed by the University in any affiliated Colleges/University Departments/Institutions;” I am of opinion that the above statute relates to sanction for admission to candidates in deserving cases who could not apply for admission within the time schedule fixed by the University which can only be in respect of a candidate who had the requisite qualification, but could not apply, which is not the case of the petitioner at all. In view of the above findings, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge