IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6227 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAMEEM P.C., PALLITHODIKA HOUSE, KODIYATHUR P.O., MUKKAM (VIA), CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT. 2. PRINCIPAL, INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KOHINOOR, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM KERALA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 7761 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.6227 & 7761 OF 2009 ---------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT The issue raised in these writ petitions are identical and therefore these cases are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Exts.P4 in WP(c).No.6227/09 and Ext.P3 in WP(c). No.7761/09 are under challenge. These are memos issued by the respondent University on 19.1.2009, informing that the registration of the petitioners to B. Tech degree examination first and 2nd semester June 2007-08 are cancelled. The reason stated is that, though the minimum required marks for admission to B. Tech is 45% for Matematics, the petitioner in WP(c).No.6227/09 had only 40% and the petitioner in WP(c).No. 7761/09 had only 42% in the Higher Secondary Examination. WP(c).No.6227/09 & nor. 2 3. Facts of the case are that as per the B. Tech Engineering Degree Course Regulations issued by the AICTE and implemented by the University as per its order dated 12.7.2004, candidates for admission to B. Tech are required to have passed Higher Secondary Examination of State Board of Kerala or examinations equivalent thereto with 50% marks in Mathematics and 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics put together. However, candidates belonging to socially and economically backward classes with a total family annual income not exceeding the limit notified by the Government from time to time, need only 45% marks in Mathematics and 45% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics put together. Petitioners are claiming the benefit of 45% marks prescribed for those belonging to socially and economically backward classes 4. The petitioners appeared in the entrance examination, included in the rank list and were eventually issued admission memos by the Principal of the Institute of Engineering and Technology, an institute functioning directing under the respondent University. They were called upon to WP(c).No.6227/09 & nor. 3 produce documents proving their eligibility which included marks lists of the qualifying examination. Documents were produced and finally they were admitted to the course during the academic year 2007-08. It is stated that when they completed the 3rd semester examination, they were issued Ext.P4 and P3 memos referred to above, informing that their registration to B. Tech degree examination first and second semester were cancelled. 5. Petitioners submit that they have not received any information from the University, that the University had verified their testimonials, that the University had voluntarily admitted them and that they had undergone courses spending two years of their precious youth and therefore at this stage, the University is estopped from contending that they are ineligible to be admitted. University, on its part contends that, admittedly petitioners did not satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement of 45% marks in Maths. It is stated that immediately on coming to know of their ineligibility, memos were issued. It is stated that their action is strictly in terms of the regulations and so long as the WP(c).No.6227/09 & nor. 4 petitioners are ineligible to be admitted, it cannot be contended that their admission should be regularized and that they should be continued in the college. While the counsel for the petitioners relied on the Apex court judgment in Guru Nanak Dev University V. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another (2009(1)SCC 610), the counsel for the University relied on the Apex Court judgment in M.G University V. Gis Jose (2008(4) KLT 216). 6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. Applicability of the B. Tech Engineering Degree Course Regulations, implemented by the University as per its order dated 12.7.2005 is not in dispute. The fact that for candidates like the petitioners, to be eligible for admission, 45% marks in Maths is one of the minimum requirement is also not disputed. Petitioners also do not dispute that they do not satisfy this requirement. Despite their ineligibility, they appeared for the entrance examination, got themselves included in the rank list and were eventually issued admission memos admitting them to B. Tech degree courses. University or the college, which is functioning directly under the WP(c).No.6227/09 & nor. 5 University, do not dispute that the testimonials produced by the petitioners were verified before admissions were granted. 7. Question is whether despite their admitted ineligibility, the petitioners can contend that they should be allowed to continue their studies. In my view, in view of the admitted ineligibility of the petitioners, they have no right to insist that they should be allowed to continue in the college. Once Regulations lay down the eligibility to be satisfied by the candidates, both the college and the student are bound by the Regulations. Therefore the admission granted was irregular and student cannot contend that he should be allowed to continue and complete the course. This precise question has been answered against the petitioners in the Apex Court judgment in M.G University V. Gis Jose (2008(4) KLT 216). Similar to the facts of this case, that was also a case where as against the minimum requirement of 55% marks, the petitioner therein who had only 53.3% was admitted to the M.Sc Computer Science. Pointing out the ineligibility of the student, the University rejected the student's application for the first and 2nd semester examinations. Despite this the students was WP(c).No.6227/09 & nor. 6 allowed to continue in the college. University directed cancellation of the admission and this dispute was raised before this court in a writ petition filed by the student. That writ petition was dismissed but the appeal was allowed and the University challenged the appellate judgment before the Apex court. Distinguishing its judgment in Selin Mary Mammen V. Mahatma Gamdhi Uiversity & Ors( Civil Appeal No.689/04), on the ground that in that case no timely notice regarding the the irregular admission to the students were given, the Apex Court upheld the cancellation of the admission on the ground that the student was ineligible to be admitted. Referring to its judgment in Regional Officer CBSE V. Ku.Sheen Peethambaran & Ors.(2003(7) SCC 719), the Apex Court also held that misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules. In my view this judgment is a complete answer to the case set up by the Petitioners. 8. The counsel for the petitioners relied on the Apex Court Judgment in Guru Nanak Dev University V. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another.(2009(1)SCC 610). That was a case WP(c).No.6227/09 & nor. 7 where a student who had completed MA under the Open University system from the Annamalai University, was admitted to LLB Course, in a College affiliated to Guru Nanak Dev University. The student completed the course and at that stage the University took the stand that the student did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for admission. The Supreme Court upheld the contention that the student did not fulfill the eligibility laid down by the University. However, taking note of the peculiar facts of the case, Apex Court held that the student is entitled to relief. It was noted that the student was admitted thorough a common entrance examination, he was permitted to write the first semester examination, that he was not guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation and that there was some confusion in the University itself as to whether the distance Education Course attended by the first respondent was the same as the correspondence course which was recognized. Finally, holding that after 4 years, if it is to be held that the student is not entitled to the admission, 4 years of his career will be irretrievably lost and on that basis holding that it was unfair and unjust to deny admission to the WP(c).No.6227/09 & nor. 8 student, which was finally accepted and recognized by the University, the Apex Court directed that the admission be treated as regular. In my view the judgment of the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University's case has to be understood in the fact of that case and in the facts of these cases, what is applicable is the law laid won in the judgment in M.G University V. Gis Jose (2008(4) KLT 216), referred to earlier. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed. vi ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE WP(c).No.6227/09 & nor. 9