IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 9543 of 2008 (J) --------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MUHAMMED FAZIL C. ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. 2. JASHEER BABU .T.P. ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. 3. MANJULA.A, ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. 4. RAHILA V.K. ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. 5. JEENA K.THOMAS ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. 6. SHAFEERA, ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. 7. MINNU PRASAD, ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. 8. SUJITHA P.LUKA ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. 9. NIJAMOL KURIAKOSE ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. WPC No. 9543/2008 - 2 - 10. LYDIA JOHN ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. 11. DARSANA.K.R. ALSHIFIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, LEMON VALLY, PERINTHALMANNA. 12. KITTY ANU THOMAS MOULANA COLLEGE OF NURSING PERINTHALMANNA 13. VINNEY RAJ, NIRMALA COLLEGE OF NURSING MARIKUNNU, CALICUT-12 14. JEENU JOHN.K. WEST FORT COLLEGE OF NURSING THRISSUR. 15. RENIL RAPHAIL WEST FORT COLLEGE OF NURSING THRISSUR. 16. GISA AN NINAN WEST FORT COLLEGE OF NURSING THRISSUR. 17. ARUN A ARJUN, JUBILEE MISSION COLLEGE OF NURSING JUBILEE GARDENS,KECHERI, THRISSUR. 18. LUBINA K., M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 19. RENEESA RASHEED, M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 20. SOUMYA A.R. M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 21. SIJI SHIBILA .P. M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 22. AYSHA SHIBILA.P. M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. WPC No. 9543/2008 - 3 - 23. SAYANA.S. M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 24. SHAMEENA.A. M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 25. PRIYA ANTONY M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 26. BISMIMOL.P.A M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 27. RONIA THOMAS, M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 28. RAJEENA JOHN M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 29. IRSHAD T.P. M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. 30. AJEESH.T, M.E.S.COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA,PERUTHALMANNA. 31. FATHIMA SUHARA.P.T. M.E.S.COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA,PERUTHALMANNA. 32. FAIROOSE.T, M.E.S.COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA,PERUTHALMANNA. 33. SABARI.S, M.E.S.COLLEGE OF NURSING MALAPARAMBA,PERUTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.T.R.RAJESH WPC No. 9543/2008 - 4 - RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, TENHIPALAM,CALICUT. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,TENHIPALAM,CALICUT. 3. BOARD OF STUDIES, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,TENHIPALAM,CALICUT. 4. WEST FORT COLLEGE OF NURSING REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL,M.G.KAVU P.O., TRICHUR. 5. ALSHIFA COLLEGE OF NURSING REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL,LEMON VALLEY PERUNTHALMANNA. 6. MOULANA COLLEGE OF NURSING REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, PERUNTHALMANNA 7. NIRMALA COLLEGE OF NURSING REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, MARIKUNNU, CALICUT-12 8. JUBILEE MISSION COLLEGE OF NURSING REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, JUBILEE GARDENS, KECHERI, TRICHUR. 9. M.E.S COLLEGE OF NURSING, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, MALAPARAMBA, PERUNTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, ALONG WITH WPC 9802 OF 2008, THE COURT ON 27/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NOs. 9543 & 9802 OF 2008 ======================= Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The question arising in these writ petitions being common, both these cases are disposed of by this judgment. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the facts as stated in WP(C) No.9543/08. 2. The prayers in the writ petition are to direct the respondent University not to give effect to Ext.P6 decision to the petitioners and to permit them to appear in the University Examinations for B.Sc Nursing Course applying the relaxed standards mentioned in Exts. P3 to P5. 3. Ext.P1 is the B.Sc Nursing Revised Syllabus (From 2002 Admission) and the Clauses 8 and 9 being relevant are extracted below for reference. (8) No candidate shall be admitted to the subsequent higher examination unless he/she has passed the previous examination. For eg., no candidate shall be admitted to the II B.Sc. Nursing examination unless he/she has passed the first year B.Sc. Nursing degree examination. (9) The candidate who fails in the I B.Sc. Nursing Examination will be allowed to continue the course only up to III year. The student will not be permitted to attend the IV year classes unless he/she passes the I year B.Sc. Nursing Examination. WPC 9543 & 9802/08 :2 : According to the petitioners despite the rigour of Clause 8 and 9, in view of the delay on the part of the University in conducting examinations periodically, the aforesaid clauses were not implemented and the students were allowed to write the examinations irrespective of whether they passed the previous examinations or not. They are also relying on Exts. P3 to P5 letters issued by the University conveying that the Vice Chancellor has granted relaxation to the students by permitting them to appear for the examinations even if they have not passed their previous examination. It is stated that on the basis of Exts. P3 to P5, petitioners have appeared for their examinations, the details of which are given in Ext.P2 chart. 4. While the position continued as above, the University issued Ext.P6 conveying the decision of the Board of studies in Nursing to retain Clause 8 and to modify Clause 9 of Ext.P1. It is stated in Ext.P6 that the Vice Chancellor in exercise of his powers of the Academic Council has approved the decision of the Board of Studies in Nursing and sanction has been accorded to implement the recommendations from 2007-08 academic year onwards. Petitioners contend that based on Ext.P6, on the strength of the decision of the University to strictly implement Clause 8 of Ext.P1, as they have not passed all their previous examinations, they will not be permitted to appear in the 4th year examination. It is on account of WPC 9543 & 9802/08 :3 : this grievance the writ petition has been filed. 5. At the outset, it should be stated that similarly situated Nursing students had approached this court by filing WP(C) Nos. 5990, 5991, 6031 and 6044/2008 and these writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment dated 20th of February, 2008. In that judgment, referring to the relaxation granted by the Vice Chancellor vide Exts. P3 to P5, this court held that there is no enabling regulation for the Vice Chancellor to grant such relaxation and that in any case since the Syndicate had resolved not to grant any relaxation from Regulation 8, this court will not be justified in compelling the University to relax the Regulations. It is informed that this judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this court by dismissing WA No.653 of 2008 by judgment dated 24/3/2008. 6. The main contention that is raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners is that the decision contained in Ext.P6 should be made applicable only to those students who are admitted for B.Sc Nursing course subsequent to the decision. According to them, implementation of Ext.P6 would have the effect of giving it retrospective application and thereby, the students are now sought to be deprived of the benefit of exemption conferred by Exts. P3 to P5, which is impermissible. WPC 9543 & 9802/08 :4 : 7. I am not in a position to accept this contention. As can be seen from Exts. P3 to P5, they are not exemptions that are granted permanently from the operation of Clause 8 of Ext.P1. On the other hand, depending upon the exigencies that arose, Vice Chancellor decided to relax Clause 8 and the benefit of such relaxation have already been enjoyed by the petitioners by appearing in the examination. If that be so, by availing of the benefit thus granted, the relaxation thus granted by Ext.P3 to P6 has worked itself out and does not survive for the future. In any case, now that the Board of Studies of the University have resolved to strictly implement Clause 8 of Ext.P1, the petitioners cannot set up any right on the basis of Exts. P3 to P5. 8. I am also not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the operation of Ext.P6 is retrospective. It is evident that once a decision has been taken by the University as is seen from Ext.P6, the University has only decided to implement that decision from that moment onwards. Therefore, Clause 8 of Ext.P1 will apply to all students who are on the rolls of the University. This situation does not give rise to any retrospective implementation of Ext.P6 as now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is also no merit in contending that benefit enjoyed by the students are WPC 9543 & 9802/08 :5 : now taken away by Ext.P6, since on the strength of Exts. P3 to P5, the students have already appeared for the examination. It is also not their case that the result of the examinations they have appeared is cancelled on the basis of Ext.P6. 9. Yet another argument that was raised was one of promissory estoppel. It is stated that on the strength of Exts. P3 to P6, the students have planned their course in such a manner that they need clear all the examinations only by the time they complete the 4th year, when they also complete their course. To set up a case of promissory estoppel, the authorities should have made a promise, based on which the recipient of the promise, should have altered his decision to his prejudice. In this case, but for Exts. P3 to P5, petitioners are bound by Ext.P1 Regulation which include Clause 8 thereof. As already held by me Exts. P3 to P5 decision taken by the Vice Chancellor can be understood only in the context of examinations that were to be held, when these orders were issued. The orders are not conferring any right on the students for the whole period of their course. Since Exts.P3 to P5 have worked itself out, it cannot rise to any case for continued promise to compell the authorities to honor the same till the period when the petitioners complete their course. That apart, unless the person who made the promise is shown to be within WPC 9543 & 9802/08 :6 : his authority, the authorities cannot be bound by such promise. In the judgment dismissing WP(C) No.5990/2008 and connected cases, this court has already held that there is no enabling provision for the Vice Chancellor to grant exemption from Clause 8 of Ext.P1. This judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench also. Therefore, the case of promissory estoppel now set up by the counsel also has no legs to stand. 10. I should also notice that in this case apart from contenting that Clause 8 of the Regulations should not be made applicable to the petitioners, petitioners have not challenged Clause 8 of Ext.P1 nor have they raised any challenge against Ext.P6 itself. Therefore, once the contention on the applicability of Ext.P6 regulation is rejected, the said regulation with all its force, becomes automatically applicable to the petitioners. 11. In my view, petitioners have not succeeded in making out a case for granting the reliefs sought for. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp