IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 33974 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MANJU G. VINAYAKA, CHALIL VADAKEYIL CHEVAYUR P.O., CALICUT - 17. BY ADV. SRI.C.VIVEK RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. 2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT 3. ACADEMIC COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT 4. THE PRINCIPAL, FAROOK COLLEGE, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R4 SMT.M.SHAJNA FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 33974/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF B.COM. EXT.P2: COPY OF CERTIFICATES OF M.COM. EXT.P3: ID CARD ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. EXT.P5: COMPLETION OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: RERESENTATION DATED 7.7.2007 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: REMINDER ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2007. EXT.P8: MEMO ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 18.10.2006. EXT.R1(b) : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS DATED 27.2.2007. EXT.R4(a) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.9.2005 BEARING NO.G4-1/2005-06. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33974 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was admitted to the course of B.L.I.Sc. (Bachelor of Library and Information Science) in Farook College, Kozhikode. She completed the course. She also appeared for the examinations held in 2006. But, her results were withheld by the Calicut University on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the qualifying certificate. 2. For admission to the course of B.L.I.Sc., the qualification required is Bachelors Degree. The petitioner says that she had passed B.Com. and M.Com. in the Distance Education Programme conducted by the Annamalai University in the year 1999 May and 2002 May respectively. Exts.P1 and P2 certificates are produced to show the aforesaid qualifications. 3. The petitioner had made representations to the University pointing out her grievance in the matter of delay in publishing the results. The University issued Ext.P8 memo dated 23.6.2008 stating that the question of recognition of B.Com. W.P.(C) No.33974/2008 2 Distance Education course of Annamalai University was considered by the Academic Council of the University and the Council decided not to recognise the course. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. There is also a prayer to issue direction to the third respondent (Academic Council) to recognise the B.Com. course (Distance Education) of Annamalai University. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 to 3 contending, inter alia, as follows : The recognition of Degree of other Universities as equivalent to that of a Degree of Calicut University is in the domain and prerogative of the University. The Academic Council, after examining the entire aspects of the matter, had taken a decision that the B.Com. (Distance Education) Degree of Annamalai University cannot be recognised as equivalent to that of B.Com Degree awarded by the Calicut University, as the course content and syllabus are different and distinct. The decision of the Academic Council is applicable to all similarly situated persons and it is not applicable to the petitioner alone. The decision of the Academic Council, normally, would not be interfered with by the High Court, W.P.(C) No.33974/2008 3 exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the University is that admission should not have been granted by the fourth respondent to the petitioner for the course as she did not possess the required qualification for admission. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent (The Principal), it is contended that the petitioner joined in the course on the belief that her qualification will be recognised by the University and equivalency certificate would be issued to her. It is also stated that Ext.R4(a) was published in the notice board of the college stating that the candidates have to apply for recognition of their qualifying examinations. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had passed M.Com (Distance Education) course of Annamalai University and that course was recognised by the Calicut University as equivalent to the M.Com Degree of Calicut University. Since M.Com Distance Education of Annamalai University is recognised by the Calicut University, there is no reason why the results of the petitioner should not be published. It is submitted that treating that the petitioner has higher W.P.(C) No.33974/2008 4 qualification, the University could pass appropriate orders regularising the admission of the petitioner and the results can be declared. The counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jyothi.K.K. and others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and others (JT 2002 (Suppl. 1) SC 85) and contended that if a person had acquired higher qualification, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that the aforesaid decision has no application for the purpose of admission to a course and the decision applies only in the matter of appointment to a post. 7. The fact that the petitioner has acquired higher qualification of M.Com. (Distance Education) of Annamalai University and that the said Degree was recognised by the Calicut University as equivalent to the M.Com Degree of Calicut University was not taken note of by the University. It was also not brought to the notice of the University by the petitioner. The question whether the petitioner having acquired M.Com (Distance Education) of Annamalai University, it could be held W.P.(C) No.33974/2008 5 that she has necessary qualification for undergoing B.L.I.Sc., is a matter for consideration by the University. The University has not expressed any view on that question. Therefore, I think it is only appropriate to relegate the decision on this question by the University itself. I do not think that the challenge against Ext.P8 need be considered at this point of time since the consideration of the question of adequacy of M.Com (Distance Education) of Annamalai University as the required qualification is relegated to be considered by the Calicut University. All the questions raised in the Writ Petition are left open. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Calicut University to consider the question whether the petitioner could be treated as having acquired the necessary qualifying Degree on the ground that she had passed M.Com (Distance Education) of Annamalai University, which has already been recognised by the Calicut University. The University shall take a decision in this regard, as expeditiously as possible. The Standing Counsel for the University submitted that consultation with the Academic Council also may be required in the matter. It is pointed out that that the Academic Council meets only twice in W.P.(C) No.33974/2008 6 a year. In these circumstances, it is not proper to fix a time limit for consideration of the matter by the University. At the same time, as the results of the petitioner are not published, the University will consider the matter at the earliest and take a decision without delay and intimate the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl