IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 28881 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SRIVATSON.K.R. S/O.K.V.RAMABHADRAN,KANNANCHERY HOUSE, POST THAYYOOR,(VIA)ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.RAMABHADRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM, KERALA STATE. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 4. PRINCIPAL, D.C.SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, PULLIKKANAM,WAGAMON, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADDL.R5. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OF CALICUT UNIVERSITY, P.O. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, PIN-673635. (ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDERIN IA 1777/08 DT.12.2.2008) BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON 27/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2881/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 10.3.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 18.9.2003. EXT.P3: LETTER DATED 13.11.2006 SENT BY 4TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE TO THE UNIVERSITY TOWARDS REMITTANCEOF ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION FEE ATTACHED WITHLIST OF STUDENTS. EXT.P4: LETTER DATED 14.11.2006 SENT BY 4TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE TO THE UNIVERSITY SHOWING DETAILS OF STUDENTS ADMITTED FOR MBA 2006. EXT.P5: LETTER DATED 20.12.2006 SENT BY 4TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE TO THE UNIVERSITY REGARDING RETURNOF MATRICULATES FOR THE YEAR 2006-07. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED MARKLIST DATED 11.1.2007 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE DATED 11.1.2007 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXT.P8: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MIGRATION CERTIFICATE DT. 20.1.2007 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXT.P9: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND RESPONDENT DT.9.3.2007. EXT.P10: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 30.5.2007 ASKING FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXT.P9 FINDING. EXT.P11: TRUE PHOTOST COPY OF THE RELEVATION PAGE OF THE RESOLUTION OF 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY DATED 21.8.07. EXT.P12: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 4.7.2007 OF 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY REGARDING CUT OFF DATE IN THE YEAR 2007. EXT.P13: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE B.TECH DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY, DATED 14.12.2007. EXT.P14: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT.18.6.07 ISSUED BY MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. EXT.P15: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 23.7.2007 ISSUED BY MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. WPC 28881/07 -2- EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.2200/AC/AIV/3/2007/ACAD DATED 15.10.2007 OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACA1/3/2636/2006 DT.4.5.2006 OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.AC.A1/3/2640/2006 DT.9.11.2006 OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXTS. OF R4 EXT.R4(a): COPYOF APPLICATION DT.11.1.2006 BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================= W.P.(C) NO.28881 OF 2007 =================== Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P11, by which the Syndicate of the respondent University has resolved not to admit the petitioner for the MBA examination and to cancel the irregular admission granted to him. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was a B.Tech student in the Calicut University and while awaiting results in the final examination, he had applied for MBA course in the 4th respondent college anticipating favourable results. In 2006, he was admitted and is undergoing course. Counsel for the petitioner tells me that the petitioner is presently in the final semester. 3. The decision that led to Ext.P11 was taken by the University for the reason that according to the University, he was ineligible to have been granted admission in the academic year 2006. Reason for such conclusion of the University is that the last date for closing the admission was on 31/10/2006. WPC 28881/07 :2 : Admittedly the results of the final examination of the petitioner was declared only on 11/1/2007. It is further contended that at the time when the petitioner applied for the admission, along with the final semester examination, petitioner also had to clear two papers of previous semester as well. In sum and substance, what the University contends is that as on 31/10/2006, petitioner was not a B.Tech graduate. Counsel for the petitioner however contends on the strength of Ext.P10 that he having passed in the examination held in June 2006, should be deemed to have been qualified as in June, 2006, even though final results were declared only in January 2007. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. I am not prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P13 Degree Certificate issued by the Calicut University should be taken as certifying that the petitioner had become a B.Tech graduate in 2006 itself. Obviously, the result was declared only on 11/1/2007 and degree certificate is dated 14/2/2007. Therefore, petitioner cannot at any rate be treated as having become a graduate prior to WPC 28881/07 :3 : January, 2007. Resultant position is that at the time when the petitioner was admitted for MBA in 2006, he was not an Engineering Graduate and therefore was ineligible. 5. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was though irregularly admitted by the 4th respondent has now reached the final semester of the course. Counsel for the petitioner contended that he has not suppressed any information from the 4th respondent or the University and therefore his admission should be treated as a regular one. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has referred me to the decision reported in Ashok Chand Singhvi v.University of Jodhpur and Others(1989(1) SCC 399), wherein in para 17, it has been held as follows: Assuming that the appellant was admitted through mistake, the appellant not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission of the appellant. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University. In that case, the appellants were admitted to certain private engineering colleges for the B.E. Degree Course, although they were not eligible for admission. In that case, this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the students whose admissions were WPC 28881/07 :4 : subsequently cancelled and the order of cancellation was upheld by the High Court. At the same time, this Court took the view that the fault lay with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants and that there was no reason why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the management of these engineering colleges. Accordingly, this Court allowed the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. The same principle which weighed with this Court in that case should also be applied in the instant case. The appellant was not at fault and we do not see why he should suffer for the mistake committed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering. Again in Shivanandam Vivekanand Babu v. State of Maharashtra (2005(10)SCC 587), it is held as follows; From a conspectus of the facts of the case, it is clear that the appellants cannot be accused of having played any trick, much less any fraud on any of the respondents. They stated the facts correctly. If ineligible, it was for the College to have refused admission to the appellants. On the material forwarded by the College to the University, the University permitted the appellants to take not one but four examinations in sequence spread over a period of two years. If the College has been guilty of any misdeed, it does not appear from the record that any action was taken by the University against the College. In such circumstances, we do not think that the appellants who come from a downtrodden class of community, can be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. WPC 28881/07 :5 : Counsel for the petitioner also has referred me to the decision in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University 1986 (Supp) SCC 470) where in para 8, it has been held as follows: Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the engineering degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the engineering colleges, which granted admission than upon the appellants. It is quite possible that the appellants did not know that neither the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan nor the first year B.Sc examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognised as equivalent to the Pre-Unviersity Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B.Sc.examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these engineering colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment, allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. WPC 28881/07 :6 : Yet another judgment that is referred by the counsel for the petitioner is Punjab Engineering college v. Sanjay Gulati (1983(3) SCC 517), where it has been held as follows: Eight candidates were admitted to the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh for the academic year 1982-83 by what is described as the “spot test”. Their admission has been struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that it is contrary to the rules and regulations governing admissions to the institution. We are of the opinion that since these students have already completed one or two semesters, it will be unjust to cancel their admission at this stage and to remove their names from the rolls of the College. We therefore direct that they will be allowed to continue their further studies in the College uninterrupted. As the cases dealt with by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, this is also a case where the petitioner was ineligible at the time when the admission was granted, but then, the petitioner cannot contend that he did not suppress any information either from the College or from the University. 7. In the statement filed on behalf of the 4th respondent College, it is stated that in the brochure that was published by them for admission for 2006-07, they had specifically mentioned that the candidates should have passed in the qualifying WPC 28881/07 :7 : examination with the prescribed marks and that relaxation was given only to candidates who were awaiting results of the final exams, on getting specific declaration that they will produce evidence of graduation within 60 days of commencement of the session. It is stated that the petitioner and his father had given such undertaking and was given provisional admission, although he had not given his marklists along with the application possibly because he was awaiting results of his previous semester as well. It is further stated that on enquiries they understood that the petitioner had appeared for 6th semester examination of B.Tech in July 2005, December 2005, and in June 2005. Though the result of final semester was declared on 16/8/2006, the result of the 6th semester examination held in June 2006 was published only on 4.1.2007. It was thereafter that marklist was obtained only on 11.1.2007. 8. Petitioner does not contradict the facts disclosed in the statement filed by 4th respondent. If that be so, he cannot say that he was awaiting final results at the time when he made application to the 4th respondent College and the declaration he WPC 28881/07 :8 : made to that effect is also wrong. That apart, he also did not produce certificates within the period prescribed for that purpose. For both these reasons, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing than the cases dealt with by the Apex Court in the cases referred to above. 9. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp