IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 11099 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ASHOKA P., S/O.APPAYA MUKHARI, PERVA HOUSE, NIRCHAL POST, KASARAGOD. 2. VENKATA KRISHNA BHAT, S/O.RADHAKRISHNA BHAT, ATTHIKAJE HOUSE, IRIYANNI POST, KASARAGOD. 3. MURALIDHARA SHARMA.A., S/O.KRISHNA BHAT, ALKKE HOUSE, NIRCHAL POST, KASARAGOD. 4. MADHU SHYAMA.V., S/O.KRISHNA BHAT, KAYARADHKA HOUSE, BERIPADAVU POST, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.E.C.BINEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY (PO), KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN - 670 567. 2. THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TEACHER EDUCATION, DHARMASALA, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS (POST), KANNUR. PIN - 670 567. *(3. THE CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, WING II, 1, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 110002). 4. RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEETHA, DEEMED UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH PIN 517507 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. (* R3 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER, AS PER ORDER DT 28.7.11 IN IA 12173/11) ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.11099/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT 9.5.94 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXT.P2: RUE COPY OF DT 1.2.2006 OF THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT 19.8.09 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF PROSPECTUS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR B.ED COURSE DURIGN 2009-10. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DT 1.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 27.9.10 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7(a): TRUE COPY OF SASTRI B.A. CRTFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7(b): TRUE COPY OF SASTRI B.A. CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7(c): TRUE COPY OF SASTRI B.A. CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P7(d): TRUE COPY OF SASTRI B.A. CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT 13.5.05 OF THE BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION (CLASS XII) OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION (CLASS XII) CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE IN RSPECT OF 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.2010 IN WPC NO.1917/2009. WPC NO.11099/11 -2- EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.4188/2011 IN WPC NO.1917/2009 I DT 18.3.2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P13(a): TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 27.11.2010 OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 11099 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners have acquired Sastri (B.A) from the University called Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidhyapeetha, Thirupathy, Andhra Pradesh. During the academic year 2009-10, they applied for admission to B.Ed (Sanskrit) under the respondent University. It is stated that they appeared for the entrance examination, got selected and were admitted by the University on condition that they should produce the equivalency certificate from the University. However, their applicaton for certificate was rejected by Ext.P5. Thereupon they approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.31917/09. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the University to consider the matter afresh in the manner as indicted below. 5. Irrespective of the contentions raised, it is a fact that in Exts.R1 to R1(c), petitioners had undertaken to produce the equivalency certificates from the University. It is for that purpose the petitioners submitted their applications. The request of the petitioners was rejected on the assumption that the course undergone by them is inferior to the degree awarded by the first respondent University and that the petitioners have not undergone the course in the 10+2+3 pattern. Petitioners seriously dispute both WPC No. 11099/11 :2 : these contentions of the University and to substantiate their contentions, they have also produced the certificates obtained by them in the SSLC, Higher Secondary and also the Degree. In my view, this is purely an academic matter and the equivalency of a course is a matter for the Academic Council of the University concerned to consider. The University has no case that at the time when they considered the applications made by the petitioners, they had with them the certificates obtained by the petitioners or even Ext.P21 issued by the University. If these documents were made available, the University may have taken a different view in the matter. Therefore, I feel that the University should reconsider the request of the petitioners, giving the petitioners an opportunity to produce the certificates, Ext.P21 and such other documents which they consider relevant for the Academic Council to decide on their applications. In order to enable the University to reconsider the matter as above, I quash Ext.P1 series of orders, rejecting the applications made by the petitioners for equivalency certificate. 6. Petitioners are directed to produce before the first respondent documents which they consider relevant within two weeks from today. It is directed that if those documents are produced as above, the Academic Council of the University will reconsider the applications made by the petitioners afresh, duly adverting to the documents so produced and in the light of the regulations governing the same and a decision in the matter will be taken, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. Needless to say that in the meanwhile, petitioners will be entitled to the benefit of the interim order passed by this Court on 09-11-2009. WPC No. 11099/11 :3 : 2. Accordingly, the petitioners filed their representations in the matter and the University has passed Ext.P14 order once again rejecting the request. It is challenging Ext.P14 order, the writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides also. 4. Ext.P14 is the order impugned. This order reads thus; quote 5. As held by the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978 SC 851), the validity of an order has to be judged in the light of the reason stated therein. A reading of Ext.P14 order shows that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the University to sustain its conclusion. Therefore, this order is unsustainable for non application of mind as well. 6. For that reason itself, I quash Ext.P14 with a direction to the Academic Council of the University to reconsider the request of the petitioner in the manner as directed in Ext.P12 judgment and that a fresh order shall be passed as expeditiously WPC No. 11099/11 :4 : as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp