IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 17139 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: JOHN BENNET PETER, S/O. V.J. PETER, B. ARCH DEGREE COURSE - IST YEAR (SEMESTER 1 AND 2), TKM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM SRI.O.F.JUSTIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM - 01. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, T.K.M COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 17139 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner obtained admission to B. Arch degree course for the academic year 2007-08 in the 3rd respondent's college. He completed one year and when he applied for registration for examinations for the 1st and 2nd semester which are being conducted together, he was told that he cannot write the examinations since his admission is irregular, he having not secured 50% marks in Mathematics in addition to the aggregate 50% marks in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry put together of the Higher Secondary Examination. He has all other qualifications. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner did have all the qualifications prescribed in Ext. P1 prospectus issued by the Government of Kerala for admission to B. Arch degree course for the year 2007-08 and therefore after having been admitted in accordance with Ext. P1 prospectus, the University cannot , after completion of one year, hold that the petitioner has been irregularly admitted. The petitioner also points out that in Ext. P2 guidelines issued by Council of Architecture, which is the statutory authority under the Central legislation on the subject also, the minimum standards prescribed is only a pass in the 10+2 course with 50% marks in the aggregate with Mathematics as a subject and no separate 50% is insisted upon for Mathematics. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “A. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P8 and issue a writ of certiorari any other writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit P8. B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to regularise the admission of the petitioner for B. Arch degree course for the academic year 2007-2008 in the college of the 3rd respondent. C. Direct the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination of 1st and 2nd semester which is to be conducted together on 18-6-2008 or any other date.” W.P.C. No. 17139/08 -: 2 :- 2. The contention of the University is that the qualifications prescribed for B. Arch course is contained in the Rules and Regulations issued by the University, a copy of which is produced as Ext. R1(a). In the same, for admission to B. Arch degree course also, separate minimum of 50% in mathematics in addition to aggregate 50% in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics put together is a necessary qualification. The learned standing counsel would submit that when there is a conflict between the prospectus and statutory regulation, the statutory regulation should prevail over the prospectus. Standing counsel relies on the decision of this Court in Varghese v. Director of Medical Education, 1987 (2) KLT 673 in support of that contention. He would further submit that as far as Ext. P2 is concerned, that only prescribed the minimum standards and there is nothing preventing the University from prescribing higher standards, which has been done in this case by Ext. R1(a). He would therefore submit that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. It is not disputed before me that Ext. P1 has not been amended or rectified at any time. It is also not disputed before me that 50% separate minimum in mathematics is a qualification prescribed for admission to other engineering degree courses. But in Ext. P1, for Architecture course alone, the minimum prescribed is only 50% in the aggregate with mathematics as a subject for the examination. Therefore, in Ext. P1, the Government has consciously included separately qualifications for B. Arch probably in tune with Ext. P2 guidelines of the Council of Architecture. The University would submit that since Ext. P1 is applicable to all the Universities in Kerala, it may be that other universities, where there are no separate W.P.C. No. 17139/08 -: 3 :- regulations fixing 50% minimum in mathematics as a qualification, can follow the same. But, so far as the Kerala University has issued Ext. R1(a) regulations, the same should prevail over Ext. P1. Although Ext. R1(a) has been titled as Rules and Regulations for Admission to B. Arch degree course effective from 2003 admission, it does not specifically appear on the face of it that it has been issued by virtue of powers under the University Act and Statutes, although the standing counsel would assert that it is so. Whatever that be, despite the legal position, as contended by the University based on Varghese's case (supra), I am of opinion that a student should not suffer because of the lack of clarity in Ext. P1 prospectus. The University was perfectly aware of Ext. P1. They did not, at any time, take any steps to inform the Government that Ext. P1 is against the regulations of the University. They did not also inform the Government to add a note to Ext. P1 clarifying that where there is a separate statutory regulation prescribing a different minimum qualification , that would prevail over Ext. P1. After the admissions, the Principal is bound to forward the details and qualifications of all admitted students to the University. The University should have verified the same and informed the college if any student has been irregularly admitted. The practice of informing the student after he completes a year and seeks registration for examination that he has been irregularly admitted, has to be deprecated in very strong words. In this case, assuming that Ext. R1(a) is statutory in character (which has not been proved before me), subsequent to Ext. R1(a), Ext. P2 guide lines issued by the Council of Architecture came into force wherein separate minimum of 50% for mathematics has not been insisted upon. In Ext. P1, qualifications have been prescribed in accordance with Ext. P2. That being so, if a student or a management W.P.C. No. 17139/08 -: 4 :- follows Ext. P1 for the purpose of admission, they cannot be faulted at any rate. After having been silent for a whole year, I am of opinion that the University cannot be permitted to spoil one year of a student for no fault of his. He, in any event, has the minimum qualifications prescribed by the expert body, namely, the Council of Architecture. That being so, I am of opinion that the petitioner should be allowed to continue studies as if he has been regularly admitted in accordance with Ext. P1 prospectus. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Ext. P8 is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner's admission to the B. Arch degree course for the academic year 2007-08 is regular. The 1st respondent shall allow the petitioner to continue studies and keep the result of the examination for the first and second semester examination which he has written as permitted in the interim order dated 16-6-2008 in this writ petition and the results shall be duly published. At least in future, the Government and the University should consult each other before prospectus for admission is issued so as to see that there is no conflict between the prospectus and the statutory regulations, if any. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge. W.P.C. No. 17139/08 -: 5 :-