THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12458 of 2003 DATED: 27.10.2005 Between: G.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Naganna …PETITONER And: The Registrar, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and another. …RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondent- University. Seeking a Provisional and Original certificate and claiming to have passed B.A. (Special English) from the School of Distance Education of Andhra University, the writ petition is filed. Petitioner claims to be currently working as a Secondary Grade Teacher, a post he joined with the qualification of B.Ed. in Social Studies and English. He claims to have pursued his B.A. in History, Economics and Political Science at the Silver Jubilee Government College, Kurnool, affiliated to Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur. Petitioner obtained Post Graduation in M.A. (Applied Economics). Petitioner desired to obtain a graduate qualification in English, as he didn’t have one having obtained B.A. in History, Economics and Political Science, for his career advancement. Petitioner applied to the School of Distance Education of Andhra University for pursuing the Special English Course in B.A. He was so permitted. He wrote the requisite papers in the optional subject of Special English, in four papers at one sitting. He was also awarded marks certificates for Special English Paper-I in Part-I as an optional subject for the first year course in April, 2003; for Special English Paper-II in Part-II as an optional subject for second year course, in April, 2003; and also for Special English Papers-3 and 4 in Part-II as optional subject in respect of the third year in April, 2003. These marks memos are dated 07.06.2003, 30.05.2003 and 22.05.2003 respectively. He then approached the second respondent for issuance of the Provisional Certificate and deposited a sum of Rs.740/- for the said purpose. The second respondent declined issuance of the Provisional Certificate by orally informing the petitioner that his admission itself was cancelled. By W.P.M.P.No.29656 of 2005, the petitioner sought amendment of the reliefs sought in the writ petition seeking invalidation of the memorandum dated 07.07.2003 issued by the second respondent, whereby and whereunder the petitioner is informed that his provisional admission in three years B.A. course for the additional subject of Special English during the year 2002-2003 is cancelled, since the other University degree obtained by the petitioner does not entitle him to admission for the additional subject of the Andhra University’s School of Distance Education. The petitioner was also informed that he may apply for refund of the tuition fee, which he paid at the time of admission. This Court ordered the amendment of the reliefs sought by the petitioner in W.P.M.P.No.29656 of 2005 by its order, dated 27.10.2005. One B.Ch.Krishna Murthy claiming to be the Associate Professor of the School of Distance Education of Andhra University/the second respondent in the writ petition filed a counter-affidavit. To the extent relevant material for the purposes of this case, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter-affidavit are extracted hereunder: - “I submit that the application submitted by the petitioner is received and he has been admitted provisionally with code No.02 BA 43783 and he is also permitted to appear for the examinations for Special English I, II and III years. In fact he was admitted and allowed to write the examinations due to the mistake committed by Ministerial staff. After issuance of the notification for B.A/B.Com/B.Sc admissions, the University has received several representations from Secondary Grade teachers requesting the University to allow them to write the examinations in certain subjects as additional subjects so that they can be considered for the promotion to the post of B.Ed. Assistants. The University considered their request and decided to permit them to write the examinations in the concerned subject as additional subject and if the candidates passed in the subject it will be included in the original degree passed by them from the Andhra University. They were permitted to write the examination in only a particular subject and not the entire course. The University has got right to alter the marks list, certificate issued by the Andhra University only. We therefore made it clear and informed all the persons at the initial stage itself that the persons who have completed their degree from the Andhra University only are eligible to write the examinations with regard to the additional subjects, as one University has no power or authority to alter the certificate issued by the other University or to issue any provisional certificate. I submit that in fact the petitioner is not eligible for admission and also to appear for the examinations, but he was allowed provisionally to write the examinations due to the mistake committed by the ministerial staff. Thereafter, he approached us and requested us to include the marks obtained by him in the marks list issued by the Krishna Devaraya University and for issuance of provisional certificate. We have informed him that we have no such power and we have also informed the petitioner that he is not eligible to write the examination, as he has not completed the degree from the Andhra University. Our staff has committed a mistake, but it does not confer any right on the petitioner for issuance of provisional certificate. Our University has no authority to issue provisional certificate for the subjects passed by the petitioner from the Krishna Devaraya University. No separate provisional certificate will be issued to a single subject. Provisional certificate would be issued if a person completes the entire course and not one subject separately and petitioner being a teacher knows about the s ame. Therefore the question of issuance of provisional certificate does not arise. The allegation that we have refused to recognizing the degree issued by the other University is not correct and the same is totally false. The persons who completed their degree from Krishna Devaraya University are eligible for admission in Andhra University. A person has to complete a particular course from one University only. For the degree which he passed from one University he cannot claim provisional certificate from other University. Therefore there are no merits in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed with costs.” Petitioner has filed, along with the writ petition a brochure, dated 01.02.2003, issued by the School of Distance Education of Andhra University, in support of his claim that he desired to pursue the course in Special English in B.A. in the School of Distance Education with a view to obtain a provisional certificate for the said course. This brochure, however, discloses that the courses offered are B.A./B.Com./B.Sc and not an additional course in Special English. On the basis of this brochure, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he bona fide applied in response to the second respondent’s offer of a course in B.A. (Special English). The course applied for was B.A. and not B.A.(Special English). ‘Special English’ is an optional subject and is part of the curriculum of the course of B.A. offered by the second respondent. B.A.(Special English) is not a special or distinct course, the pursuit of and success at which, entitles the petitioner to a degree certificate in Special English and to a provisional or original certificate, on that basis alone. However, this tragedy of errors is to a large extent engendered by the vagrant and negligent conduct of the respondents, in particular the second respondent. As is admitted in paragraph 3 of the counter- affidavit filed by Sri B.Ch.Krishna Murthy (extracted above), though the petitioner applied for B.A.(Special English) with a view to obtain a degree in B.A.(Special English) which he assumed was being offered by the second respondent, the Registry of the second respondent admitted the petitioner and allowed him to write the examination, admittedly “due to the mistake committed by the ministerial staff”. This acknowledgment, clear and equivocal of the error by the second respondent is admitted particularly in paragraph 4 of the counter- affidavit, where on behalf of the second respondent it is admitted that the petitioner was allowed to provisionally write the examination due to the mistake committed by the ministerial staff. Even according to the second respondent, as the petitioner did not pursue or obtain a degree from Andhra University, he has no right to obtain a degree certificate with an endorsement of having completed a course in Special English because one University cannot amend or add to a degree certificate issued by another University. The B.A. degree certificate obtained by the petitioner after pursuing the entire course in B.A., in the discipline of History, Economics and Political Science is from Sri Krishnadevaraya University. The second respondent contends and the contention commends acceptance by this Court that in the absence of any legal environment to the contrary, the second respondent a different University does not have jurisdiction to add to the certification of a degree course issued by another University. Each University in the Sate is presumptively a legally distinct and academic entity and no collaboration between different universities or a joint academic command is established. However, the offer of the course of Special English by the second respondent appears to have been pursuant to representations from several Secondary Grade Teachers requesting the University to allow them to write the examinations in certain subjects as additional subjects, so that they could be considered for promotion to the post of B.Ed. Assistants. In these circumstances, it was the responsibility of the University to have clarified to all applicants that the candidates who have a degree course from another University would not be entitled either to admission to a special course of this University or even if admitted, a provisional certificate modifying the degree certificate granted by another University cannot be issued. This, the second respondent clearly failed to clarify. It was this academic and administrative opacity, compounded by the admitted error on the part of the staff of the second respondent, that has contributed to the tragic plight of the petitioner who pursued the course and perhaps even benefited academically but without any material success. The petitioner has thus suffered a clear injury as a consequence of the errant administration process compounded by a clear negligent conduct on the part of the second respondent-University. This highly irregular and negligent conduct of the second respondent however would not entitle the petitioner to a certificate of his pass in the B.A. examination with Special English as an optional subject. It is not possible or legally permissible for Andhra University or its School of Distance Education to incorporate an amendment to a degree certificate issued by Sri Krishnadevaraya University. No legal authority of the second respondent to certify so is established. To direct the second respondent to issue a provisional certificate would therefore, and in the circumstances, be contrary to the public interest and would impinge upon the autonomy of both Andhra and Sri Krishnadevaraya Universities. This Court therefore declines the plea of the petitioner for the relief he claims. Petitioner is however entitled to be compensated for the injury suffered by him on account of the gross irregularity and admitted negligence of the second respondent-University. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of directing the second respondent to pay costs to the petitioner in an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for the injury suffered by him, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The measure of costs awarded herein would perhaps sensitize the second respondent in future to avoid a process resulting enticing similar candidates to an identical fate as the petitioner. No order as to costs. ____________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) 27.10.2005 dr