IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.A.No.704 of 2008 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.1514/2008 DATED 30/01/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034. 2. THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FUTURE STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:- ----------------------------------------- GINU GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, KEEPADAYIL HOUSE, VELLOORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA MARKET, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 673. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.704 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 17th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellants challenge the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, directing them to issue provisional degree certificate to the petitioner for M.Phil in Future Studies. 2. It was contended by the petitioner that the University had been dragging its feet in the matter of issuing the provisional certificate on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce the eligibility certificate in the qualifying examination. Though the claim made by the petitioner was resisted by the University contending, inter alia, that the petitioner had failed to produce the requisite qualifying certificate, the learned Single Judge took the view that they could not be justified in denying the certificate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly for the reason that the University had closed its eyes in the matter, for no justifiable reasons. If, in fact, the University was of the view that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for admission to M.Phil Course in as much as the Master's Degree obtained by him was not recognised by the University, it ought to have alerted the petitioner or taken appropriate action in the matter well in time. The W.A.No.704 of 2008 - 2 - petitioner having completed the course and having passed the M.Phil Examination, it was not proper or just on the part of the University in denying the provisional certificate to him, it was observed by the learned Single Judge. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had also placed reliance on the decision of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and others [(1990) 3 SCC 23]. 3. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and having perused the materials available on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer, Judge vku/