IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 5954 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SALEEMUDHEEN KARIKUZHI, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.ALI MOHAMMED, P.D.TEACHER GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KONDOTTI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. N. PRATHEESH, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.P.SUKUMARAN, HAPPY HOME, CHERUKARA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ACADEMIC COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REP. BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF LECTURERS IN UNIVERSITY TEACHER EDUCATION CENTRE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, REGISTRAT UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON 2/7/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 5954/2008-H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE M.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN MATHEMATICS ISSUED BY THE ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE M.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE IN MATHEMATICS ISSUED BY THE ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P3 COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P6 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16/9/2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF ANNAMALI UNIVERSITY TO THE REGISTRAR OF UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P9 COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P10 COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P11 COPY OF THE SYLLABUS FOR THE DISTANCE EDUCATION MODE UNDER WHICH THE PETITIONERS HAVE STUDIED. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.5954 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are Post Graduates in Mathematics. They obtained their M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics from the Annamalai University under the Directorate of Distant Education. Besides the said post graduate degree, the first petitioner obtained M.Ed. Degree from the University of Calicut and the second petitioner obtained B.Ed Degree in Mathematics from the University of Kerala. Both of them had applied to the second respondent for issuance of an eligibility certificate for the M.Sc Mathematics Degree obtained from the Annamalai University for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Government College as also in the Training Colleges. Thereupon the first respondent issued Exts.P5 and P6 certificates respectively to them. The grievance of the petitioners is that as per the said certificate, their eligibility for employment was restricted to teaching in plus two classes. That apart, in and vide the said certificates the petitiners are barred from higher studies in Mathematics as well as from being appointed as teachers in the University or colleges affiliated to the first respondent-University. Feeling aggrieved by such restrictions, W.P.(C) NO.5954/2008 2 they moved the second respondent, pointing out that the certificate issued by the Annamali University for those who had undergone M.Sc Degree in Mathematics under the Distant Education Programme is one and the same as the one issued to the regular students for the said course. To that effect, the second petitioner was issued with Ext.P8 certificate by the Registrar of the Annamali University. Thereafter, they had again applied to the second respondent for issuance of an equivalency certificate by taking into account Ext.P8. However, they were issued with Exts.P9 and P10 certificates carrying the very same restrictions as incorporated in Exts.P5 and P6. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash Exts.P5, P6, P9 and P10 to the extent they disqualify the petitioners from seeking teaching posts in colleges as well as from seeking higher studies. They have also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to issue unconditional eligibility certificates to them for the M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics obtained by them from Annamalai University. 2. The petitioners have produced Exts.P3, P4, P8 and P11 in support of their above mentioned claim that the M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics obtained by them from Annmalai University under the W.P.(C) NO.5954/2008 3 Distant Education Programme is liable to be reckoned as equivalent to that of the Degree obtained through regular course. According to them, when the Registrar of the University certifies that the syllabus and the course content of M.Sc. Mathematics for the regular students as also for the students under the Distant Education Programme are one and the same, there is no reason for the first respondent to decline issuance of equivalency certificates. To buttress their contention, the petitioners have relied on a decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 31188 of 2003. That was a case where the equivalency of the M.Sc. Degree obtained from the Madras University was the point in issue. The first respondent - University as also the M.G. University and the University of Kerala were parties in the said Writ Petition. The decision taken by the said Universities not to issue equivalency certificate to the petitioner therein, in respect of M.Ed .Degree obtained from the Madras University, was interfered with by this Court and the Academic Council of the first respondent - University was directed to take up the case of the petitioner and to consider the same in the light of the provisions of the University Act, Statute and Regulations. Such a direction was issued, relying on Ext.P14 judgment therein, that is the judgment in O.P. No.590 of 1995 and W.P.(C) NO.5954/2008 4 the fact that the Calicut University had already recognised the M.Ed. Degree (Regular) course conducted by the Madras University was taken in appeal as W.A. No.604 of 2004 and as per judgment dated 24.2.2006, the said Writ Appeal was dismissed. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit resisting the claims and contentions of the petitioners. It is contended that the declaration of equivalency of Degree awarded by another University to that of a Degree awarded by the first respondent - University falls exclusively within the scope of power of its Academic Council. The Academic Council of the first respondent - University already took a decision that the M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics obtained by the petitioners from Annmalai University through Distant Education Programme shall not be declared as equivalent to that of M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics awarded by the University of Calicut. Since it being a decision taken by the competent experts, that decision cannot be subjected to judicial review. To buttress the said contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision of this Court in O.P. No.21515 of 2002, which was confirmed in W.A. No.1381 of 2007. In the judgment in O.P. No.21525 of W.P.(C) NO.5954/2008 5 2002, it was held as hereunder: “................. The students trained in the regular classes and the students trained through the Distance Education Scheme form separate classes. Even if the same syllabus is studied by both of them, the quality of learning probably, will be different. If the academic council of the University thinks that the Degree awarded to the regular students alone should be recognized, this Court cannot sit in appeal and reverse the said decision of the academic counsel of the University. The Apex Court has repeatedly reminded that normally, the courts should not interfere with the decisions of the academic bodies of the University. 4. In this context, it is to be noted that the Academic Council of the Calicut University consists of the following members: (a)the Vice-Chancellor; (b)the Pro-Vice-Chancellor; (c)the Director of Public Instruction; (d)the Director of Technical Education; (e)the Director of Collegiate Education; (f)the Director of Research and Studies; (g)the Director of Physical Education; (h)the Deans of Faculties; (i)the General Secretary to the University Union; (j)all the Heads of University Departments of study W.P.(C) NO.5954/2008 6 and research, who are not Deans of Faculties; (k)all members of the Syndicate who are not otherwise members of the Academic Council; (l)five members (other than Deans of Faculties) of whom at least one shall be the principal of a Government professional college, elected by the principals of professional colleges from among themselves; (m)seven members (other than Deans of Faculties) of whom at least one shall be the principal of a Government College, elected by the principals of first grade colleges, other than colleges of oriental languages, from among themselves; (n)two members (other than Deans of Faculties) elected by the principals of junior colleges from among themselves; (o)the principal of a college of oriental languages, not being a Dean of Faculty, nominated by the Chancellor by rotation according to seniority; (p)one member each of every subject of study (not being a Dean of Faculty or head of a University department or principal) elected by the teachers of that subject from among themselves; (q)one headmaster and one teacher of secondary school in the University area nominated by the Chancellor; (r)one member representing each faculty, elected by the full-time post graduate students of the faculty from among themselves; (s)five external experts to be nominated by the Chancellor.” W.P.(C) NO.5954/2008 7 The very constitution of the said Council would reveal that the said august body consists of several experts. When such a body, after considering the syllabus and curriculum, forms an opinion that Ext.P3 decree obtained by the petitioners cannot be equated to the same Degree obtained through regular course, this Court cannot substitute its opinion for the same. In academic actions like this, unless it is shown that there has been violation of the Act or the Rules, there is no scope for any judicial review to see whether a particular Degree obtained through Distant Education Programme is equivalent to the one obtained through regular course. As already noticed, the judgment in O.P. No.21515 of 2002 was confirmed in W.A. No.1381 of 2007. In view of the fact that the very question of scope of judicial review has been raised in this case, I think the judgment in O.P. No.21515 of 2002 as confirmed in W.A. No.1381 of 2007 is having more precedential value. Therefore, I am of the view that Exts.P5, P6, P9 and P10 cannot be interfered with by this Court and the petitioners are not entitled to the direction sought for in the Writ Petition. W.P.(C) NO.5954/2008 8 In view of the said position, the Writ Petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.5954/2008 9 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 5954/2008 JUDGMENT 28th October, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.5954/2008 10 (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO.5954/2008 11 JUDGMENT September, 2010