IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 6978 of 2007(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. ASWANY A.L., STUDENT, FINAL SEMESTER, B.A.COMMUNICATIVE ENGLISH (RE-STRUCTURED) COURSE, S.N.COLLEGE, PUNALUR. 2. HASEENA A., -DO- -DO-. 3. KAVIN SANDHYA SADANANDAN, -DO- -DO-. 4. PRADEEJA K.P., -DO- -DO-. 5. PRIYA BABY, -DO- -DO-. 6. GOKUL Y., -DO- -DO-. 7. SAJI BABU, -DO- -DO-. 8. SANILKUMAR M., -DO- -DO-. 9. SHANAVAS KHAN S., -DO- -DO-. 10. SHANOJ SHARAF S., -DO- -DO-. 11. ASHA S., -DO- -DO-. 12. ANUSHA ANAND, -DO- -DO-. 13. AJEESHA MAJEED, -DO- -DO-. 14. BINJU R.KRISHNA, -DO- -DO-. 15. DIVYA RAJ, -DO- -DO-. 16. GARGI S., -DO- -DO-. 17. PRIYA RAJ, -DO- -DO-. 18. SEETHA LEKSHMI R., -DO- -DO-. 19. SRUTHI S.CHANDRAN, -DO- -DO-. W.P.(C) NO.6978/2007 20. SUMA SURENDRAN, -DO- -DO-. 21. VINEETHA M.RAJAN, -DO- -DO-. 22. BINOY R., -DO- -DO-. 23. SYAM S., STUDENT, FOURTH SEMESTER, B.A. COMMUNICATIVE ENGLISH (RE-STRUCTURED) COURSE, S.N.COLLEGE, PUNALUR. 24. RAJESH R., -DO- -DO-. 25. PRAVEEN RAJ, -DO- -DO-. 26. SRUTHI R., -DO- -DO-. 27. RENCY ANN EAPEN, STUDENT, SECOND SEMESTER, B.A.COMMUNICATIVE ENGLISH (RE-STRUCTURED) COURSE, S.N.COLLEGE, PUNALUR. 28. RATHEESH R., -DO- -DO-. 29. NEETHU S.KHAN, -DO- -DO-. 30. SREETHU S., -DO- -DO-. BY ADVS.MR.N.SUKUMARAN MR.S.SHYAM MR.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ACCADEMIC COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.6978/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.AC.A.II/3/4961/06 DT. 22.6.06. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 18.7.06 BEARING NO.AC.A11/3/4961/06. P3:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE HAND BOOK FOR ADMISSION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER AS THE SECRETARY OF THE ENGLISH ASSOCIATION, S.N.COLLEGE, PUNALUR BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 1.11.05. P4(a):- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SIGNED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT SIGNED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING EXT.P4. P5:- COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER DT. 27.1.07. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 6978 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are students of the B.A degree course in Communicative English Semester System (Re-structured). They are aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the University of Kerala, whereby for the purpose of admission to M.A degree course, B.A degree holders in English Language and Literature are given 5% weightage marks, which are denied to the B.A degree holders in Communicative English. According to them, this is discriminatory. They would submit that both are degree courses. Prior to Exts.P1 and P2, both of them were treated equally for the purpose of admission to post-graduate course. By giving 5% weightage marks to B.A degree holders in English Language and Literature they are stealing a march over the students who passed B.A degree course in Communicative English. Therefore, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “(A) Call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P5 from the respondents; (B) Quash Exts.P1 and P2 by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order; (C) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat Graduates in English Language and Literature and Communicative English (Semester Stream) alike as it stood before Exts.P.1 and P2 were issued for the purpose of ranking for admission to M.A. English Course without any sort of discrimination.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it is stated that it is after great deliberations at all levels of the University that the University had taken such a decision. According to University, the two courses are different in form and content. The B.A degree course in Communicative English is governed by semester system whereas the B.A degree course in English language and Literature is W.P.C. No. 6978/2007 -: 2 :- not. As a result, in view of the internal assessment applicable to semester system, the persons who pass B.A degree in Communicative English score very high marks and even the first rank holder in B.A degree examination in English Language and Literature finds it very difficult to secure admission to M.A degree course, when he/she competes with B.A degree holders in Communicative English. It is in order to offset that apparent inequilibrium that the University has decided to grant 5% weightage marks to students who pass B.A degree examination in English Language and Literature for admission to M.A degree course, is the contention raised by the University. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The University has explained the necessity for granting weightage marks to B.A degree holders in English Language and Literature for admission to M.A degree course thus: “8. Admittedly, Communicative English is a Restructured Degree Course started under the guidelines of the UGC. It was originally devised as terminal course and was intended to enable students to avail job opportunities. The University's gesture of allowing such students to pursue higher education is an additional benefit given to them. Since B.A Communicative English is a Semester Course having internal assessment component and project work, students pursuing the course could naturally score higher marks and on passing the Degree Course, they subsequently cornered the majority of the seats for the M.A. Degree Course in English Language & Literature in the Colleges and in the University Institute of English. Representations were received in 2005 from the students of the B.A Degree course in English Language & Literature indicating the problems encountered by them in getting admission admission to the M.A. Degree course in English Language & Literature as a result of the application of the then existing norms for calculating the index marks for admission to the M.A. Degree Course in English Language & Literature. Even the First Rank holder of the W.P.C. No. 6978/2007 -: 3 :- B.A. Degree Examinations in English Language & Literature held in April/May, 2004, Smt. Sruthi Ramachandran could not find a place in the sure list for admission to the M.A. Degree Course in English published by the respective college. Finding that the students passing the B.A Degree Course in English Language & Literature had some genuine grievances, their representations were referred to the Board of Studies in English (Pass) which met on 21.12.2005 for an academic scrutiny of the issue. The Board of Studies after having detailed discussion and analysis of the issue recommended to frame new guidelines for ranking (Ext. R1-2) for admission to M.A. English course. The above recommendation was referred to a combined meeting of the Board of Studies in English (PG) and English (Pass) for detailed consideration. After having detailed discussions, the combined meeting held on 02.03.2006 modified the guidelines (Ext. R(3)) and referred it to the Academic Council at its meeting held on 24th and 25th May 2006. The Academic Council is responsible for the maintenance of standards of instructions, education and examination within the University as per Section 24(2) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 and as per Section 25 Clause (V), the Academic Council has the power to prescribe the qualifications for admission of students to the various courses of studies and examinations and accordingly, the Council after detailed discussions and deliberations, resolved to frame new guidelines and the formal University Order was issued as per No.Ac.A.II/3/4961/2006.” I do not think that there is anything wrong in such a policy decision taken by the University. In view of the cogent reasons mentioned therein, I do not think that the action of the University amounts to discrimination. Further, it is settled law that this Court not being an expert on academic matters should leave such decisions to the experts on the field [See Medical Council of India v. Sarang and others, (2001) 8 SCC 427]. Here, the decision in this matter was taken by the University in consultation with the Academic Council, which is the expert on the subject. I do not think that this Court can interfere with that decision insofar as it cannot be said that the W.P.C. No. 6978/2007 -: 4 :- decision is based on extraneous considerations. In the above circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in Exts. P1 and P2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/