IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31917 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. ASHOKA P., S/O.APPAYA MUKHARI, PERVA HOUSE, NIRCHAL POST, KASARAGOD. 2. VENKATA KRISHNA BHAT, S/O.RADHA KRISHNA BHAT, ATTHIKAJE HOUSE, IRIYANNI POST, KASARAGOD. 3. MURALIDHARA SHARMA A., S/O.KRISHNA BHAT, ALAKKE HOUSE, NIRCHAL POST, KASARAGOD. 4. MADHU SHYAMA V., S/O.KRISHNA BHAT, KAYARADHKA HOUSE, BERIPADAVU POST, KASARAGOD. BY ADVS. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.E.C.BINEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY (PO), KANNUR (DISTRICT). 2. THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TEACHER EDUCATION, DHARMASALA, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS (POST), KANNUR. 3. THE CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, WING-II, I, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002. ...2/- WP(C).No. 31917 of 2009(H) -2- 4. THE REGISTRAR, RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEEDA, (DEEMED UNIVERSITY), TIRUPATI, ANDRA PRADESH. 5. THE DIRECTOR, THE DISTANT EDUCATION COUNCIL, IGNOU MAIDAN GARHI, NEW DELHI-110 068. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC-NCTE R5 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...3/- WP(C).No. 31917 of 2009(H) -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P(1)a : COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P(1)b : COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P(1)c : COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 8-10-2009. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE RECOGNITION POLICY OF THE DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 9-5-1994 OF THE MINISTRY OF PERSONAL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (GOVERNMENT OF KERALA). EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1-2-2006 BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE EQUIVALENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19-8-2009 TO NIKHIL C. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR BACHELOR EDUCATION PROGRAMME(B.ED) WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NCTE IN THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE SASTRI BA DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. ...4/- WP(C).No. 31917 of 2009(H) -4- EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE SASTRI BA DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P15 : COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P16 : COPY OF THE HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P17 : COPY OF THE SASTRI BA DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P18 : COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P19 : COPY OF THE PRAK SASTRI INTERMEDIATE PASS CERTIFICATE CUM CONSOLIDATED MARKS MEMORANDUM OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P20 : COPY OF THE SASTRI BA DEGREE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P21 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.9.2010 OF THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEEDA, TIRUPATI TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1. : COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.R1(b) : COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.R1(c) : COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.R1(d) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE AGENDA FOR THE 19TH MEETING OF EQUIVALENCE COMMITTEE HELD ON 11-12-2008. EXT.R1(e) : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE COURSE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TEACHER EDUCATION. ...5/- WP(C).No. 31917 of 2009(H) -5- EXT.R5(1) : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. DEC/UNIV/STATE/07/5556 DATED 31.8.07, ISSUED BY THE DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL OF THIS RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXT.R5(2) : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. DEC/RSV/TPT/AP/2008/20943 DATED 31.3.2009, ISSUED BY THE DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL OF THIS RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31917 of 2009 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioners, they have passed B.A. Sanskrit from the Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeta, Thirupathi under the Distance Education Programme. They applied for admission to B.Ed course under the first respondent University. They were selected. Thereupon, Exts.R1 to R1(c) undertakings were furnished by the petitioners, undertaking that they will produce equivalency certificates from the University itself. 2. On that basis, they were admitted to the course and they applied for equivalency certificates also. However, relying on Ext.R1(d), the decision of the Academic Council of the University, the request of the petitioners for equivalency certificate was rejected by Ext.P1 series of orders. In view of Ext.P1, petitioners apprehended that they will be made to discontinue the course. It is with that apprehension, this writ W.P.(C) No.31917/09 : 2 : petition was filed, challenging Ext.P1 decision and for directing the University to grant equivalency certificates and permit the petitioners to continue the course on that basis. 3. Petitioners contend that in Ext.R1(d), the view taken by the University is that the course undergone by them is inferior to the Degree course conducted by the respondent University. Relying on Ext.P21, a communication issued by the fourth respondent, petitioners contend that the course content, examination and the certificates issued by the fourth respondent, for both Regular and Distance Education courses are equivalent in all respects. According to them, as is evident from Ext.P6, regular degree granted by the fourth respondent is recognised by the first respondent and if so, in view of Ext.P21, there is no reason to refuse to grant equivalency in respect of the degree obtained under the Distance Education Programme. They also contend that before the University took the view that the course undergone by them is inferior, the University did not afford them an opportunity to produce materials which substantiate that the W.P.(C) No.31917/09 : 3 : course undergone by them is equal in all respects with the Regular course imparted by the University. 4. On the other hand, the University has justified Ext.P1 series of orders in the counter affidavit filed. According to the University, they have recognised Regular Degree awarded by the fourth respondent University for the reason that the Regular Degree course is equivalent in all respects to the Degree awarded by them. It is also stated that the petitioners have not completed the course in the 10+2+3 pattern and that it was, therefore, also that the Degree obtained by them is not recognised by the University. The University has also stated that after cancelling the admission granted to the petitioners for not producing equivalecy certificate, other students were admitted for the course. 5. Irrespective of the contentions raised, it is a fact that in Exts.R1 to R1(c), petitioners had undertaken to produce the equivalency certificates from the University. It is for that purpose the petitioners submitted their applications. The request of the petitioners was rejected on the assumption W.P.(C) No.31917/09 : 4 : that the course undergone by them is inferior to the degree awarded by the first respondent University and that the petitioners have not undergone the course in the 10+2+3 pattern. Petitioners seriously dispute both these contentions of the University and to substantiate their contentions, they have also produced the certificates obtained by them in the SSLC, Higher Secondary and also the Degree. In my view, this is purely an academic matter and the equivalency of a course is a matter for the Academic Council of the University concerned to consider. The University has no case that at the time when they considered the applications made by the petitioners, they had with them the certificates obtained by the petitioners or even Ext.P21 issued by the University. If these documents were made available, the University may have taken a different view in the matter. Therefore, I feel that the University should reconsider the request of the petitioners, giving the petitioners an opportunity to produce the certificates, Ext.P21 and such other documents which they consider relevant for the Academic Council to decide on their W.P.(C) No.31917/09 : 5 : applications. In order to enable the University to reconsider the matter as above, I quash Ext.P1 series of orders, rejecting the applications made by the petitioners for equivalency certificate. 6. Petitioners are directed to produce before the first respondent documents which they consider relevant within two weeks from today. It is directed that if those documents are produced as above, the Academic Council of the University will reconsider the applications made by the petitioners afresh, duly adverting to the documents so produced and in the light of the regulations governing the same and a decision in the matter will be taken, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. Needless to say that in the meanwhile, petitioners will be entitled to the benefit of the interim order passed by this Court on 09-11-2009. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks