IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3952 of 2009(U) -------------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- ANTONY K.BENITO, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.DR.JOHN BENITO, KALATHIPARAMBIL, MAESTRIPADY, KOONAMAVU, VARAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 683 518. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE (VEYKKAN) SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560. 3. SREE NARAYANA GURU INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, MANNAM P.O. NORTH PARUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY - R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3952 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that she had completed Bachelor of Information Technology (B.I.T) from Manipal Academy of Higher Education (Mahe) under the Distance Education Programme. Thereafter, he obtained admission to M.C.A in the 3rd respondent College, affiliated to M.G. University during the Academic years 2003-2006. It is stated that immediately thereafter he made Exhibit P1 application to the University for recognising his degree, obtained by Distance Education Programme. Orders were not passed and in the meanwhile, the petitioner continued his studies. He was allowed to appear for the examinations and results were also declared. Final year examination was written, but however his results were withheld on the ground that his degree course was not a recognised one. 2. At that stage, petitioner approached this court and filed W.P(C) No.28632/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P3 judgment directing the respondent to pass order on Exhibit P1 application dated 04/02/2004. It also needs to be W.P.(C) No. 3952 /2009 2 mentioned that the 3rd respondent college had filed counter affidavit in that writ petition. Copy of which is Exhibit P2, where the college says that the petitioner had given his original degree mark lists to produce before the University as per letter dated 19/12/2003 and that the University had not responded to Exhibit P1. Any way, the college was also putting blame on the University in not passing orders on Exhibit P1 in time. Irrespective of that, in compliance of Exhibit P3 judgment, the University considered Exhibit P1 and passed Exhibit P4 order, which reads as under. “with reference to the above I am directed to inform you that the University had already considered the earlier applications received from other persons for recognition of Bachelor of Information Technology conducted by Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal under Distance Education Programme and resolved to reject their request on the basis of the negative opinions of the subject experts concerned.” It is challenging Exhibit P4, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Main contention raised by the counsel for the W.P.(C) No. 3952 /2009 3 petitioner is that immediately on his securing admission for M.C.A in the 3rd respondent College, his degree mark lists were submitted to the University and that he had also filed Exhibit P1. It is stated that there was absolutely no response from the University and he was treated as a regular student for all purposes. It is sated that the University having permitted him to complete the course on that basis, it is not open to the University now to contend that degree course acquired by the petitioner is not a recognised one. Counsel also tried to distinguish the judgment of the Apex Court in M.G. University Vs. Gis Jose [2008 (4) K.L.T 216]. Counsel for the University referring to counter affidavit filed sought to contradict the assertion made by the petitioner. According to him, the course undergone by the petitioner under the Distance Education Scheme of Manipal Academy of Higher Education, was not a recognised one. It is also stated that similar requests made by the other students have been turned out by the University. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, it would thus appear that the degree obtained by the petitioner is from Manipal W.P.(C) No. 3952 /2009 4 Academy of Higher Education under the Distance Education Programme. Thus, the course does not seem to be one enjoying the recognition of respondent University. It is therefore, that University taken the stand that the petitioner was ineligible to be admitted for the course. 5. Even if the above is the factual position, question is whether it is still open to the University to take such a contention. As already noticed, petitioner joined course during the academic year 2003 and in December 2003 itself petitioner had submitted his mark lists and in February 2004 petitioner submitted Exhibit P1, application seeking recognition of degree, obtained by him. University has no case that at any time before Exhibit P4, they have raised any contention regarding the eligibility of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner secured admission, he was allowed to appear for the examinations and his result is also declared by the University and it is only after the final examination, that the University disputed the eligibility of the student. 6. In my view at this late stage, the University should not W.P.(C) No. 3952 /2009 5 be permitted to take this stand. If the University had any dispute about the eligibility of the student, University ought to have passed orders on Exhibit P1 immediately on its receipt. On the other hand by their own inaction, petitioner was permitted to complete the course, and at that belated stage dispute is raised. Although, counsel for the University, placed considerable reliance on the judgment referred to by the counsel for the petitioner, still a reading of the judgment would show that law laid down by the Apex Court cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. A reading of paragraph 3 of the judgment, shows that soon after the admission was granted, the University informed the College that the student is ineligible. Again the University Academic Council also held that the student ineligibile. It was despite all that, the student was permitted to undergo studies. As already noticed, no such stand was taken by the University any time before the petitioner had completed course. If so, I am not prepared to follow the judgment referred to above and held that the petitioner is ineligible to be admitted. 7. On the facts, I am satisfied that it is only on account W.P.(C) No. 3952 /2009 6 of inaction on the part of University that situation has happened. Therefore, this matter needs reconsideration. I direct that the University shall reconsider Exhibit P1, as a special case in the light of observations made herein above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent University, who shall consider and pass orders expeditiously as possible. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm