IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 22908 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. SUNISH K., KOLERI HOUSE, MADAVUR POST, NARIKUNI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SURAYYA K.M., NALAKATH HOUSE, THAZHEKODE WEST P.O., PERINTHALMANNA. 3. SAKKEER HUSSAIN C., CHIRAKKATTIL HOUSE, CHERTHANAKURSSY, ANAMANGAD P.O., MALAPPURAM. 4. SALEEM FAISAL P., PANCHILI, DARUL JAZEERA, ATTEERI, KOTTAKKAL P.O. 5. SHAHINA P.V., KALATHIL HOUSE, ELETTIL P.O., KODUVALLY VIA. 6. KHIRUNNEESA MELATHIL, RAHMATH MANZIL, ELANKUR P.O., MANJERI VIA, MALAPPURAM. 7. BELSI RAJAM P., THEMMELPURAM HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., NELLENARA, THRISSUR. 8. NISHA.K.P., PADUVIL HOUSE, MANKADA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI. E.C. BINEESH SMT. M.B. SHYNI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CALICUT UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENJIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673 635. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENJIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673635. ...2/- WP(C).No. 22908 of 2010(K -2- 3. THE REGISTRAR, ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, ANNAMALAI NAGAR, TAMIL NADU- PIN 608002. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 22908 of 2010 K ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to have passed M.Ed(Regular) from the Annamalai University. They thereafter made applications to the first respondent University for the issuance of equivalency certificates. That was not issued and that led the petitioners to file this writ petition. 2. Standing Counsel for the respondent University, on instructions, submits that several instances have come to their notice, where outside Universities have admitted students far in excess of the sanctioned strength. It is stated that, in such circumstances, the University has been requesting applicants like the petitioners to produce certificate from the University concerned to the effect that the admission granted to the applicant was within the sanctioned strength. It is stated that such certificates have not been produced by the petitioners. Counsel also relies on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.1184/2008 where, according to them, such a demand made by the WPC.22908/10 : 2 : University was upheld by this Court. 3. If, as stated by the University, having regard to the circumstances prevailing, they have asked for a certificate from the University where the students claim to have undergone their studies, this Court cannot find fault with the said action of the University. Therefore, on merits, I am inclined to accept the submission of the Standing Counsel. 4. It may true that the Annamalai University is a University coming within the purview of Section 2(f) of the U.G.C. Act. However, if the Calicut University wanted a certificate from the Annamalai University as demanded in this case, the fact that the University is one coming under the UGC Act is inconsequential. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks