IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38617 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SASHI M., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. P.AMBU (LATE), MUNDAYIL HOUSE, CHOOTTUVAM, P.O.PUDUKAL, VIA NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, MANGATTU PARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001. 2. ACADEMIC COUNSEL, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTU PARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 001. ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 38617 of 2010 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner made an application to the respondent University for an equivalency certificate for M.Sc Computer Science (Distance Education) (Lateral Entry) to the Degree obtained by him from Annamalai University. When he made the application, the University issued him Ext.P3 communication dated 01-12-2010, requiring the petitioner to produce a certificate from the Annamalai University to the effect that the contact programme and the examination of the course pursued by him was conducted within the territorial jurisdiction of the University, as per the rules of the Distance Education Council/UGC, along with the scheme and syllabus of the Lateral Entry Course, duly attested by the Registrar of the said University. It is challenging Ext.P3, this writ petition is filed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that, in view of W.P.(C) No.38617/2010 : 2 : Ext.P4, which evidences that the UGC has granted recognition to the Annamalai University, demand made in Ext.P3 is illegal. I am not able to appreciate the said contention. Obviously, the Annamalai University could not have conducted a programme outside its territorial jurisdiction. If that be so, when an application is made for equivalency certificate, the respondent University is perfectly within its power to ask for a certificate of the nature mentioned in Ext.P3 and on receipt of the said communication, it was for the petitioner to have obtained the certificate and produce the same before the respondent University to enable it to consider the petitioner's application for the issuance of the equivalency certificate. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P3. The writ petition will, therefore, stand disposed of, directing that it will be open to the petitioner to produce the certificate mentioned in Ext.P3 and that, on production of the same, the first respondent University will consider the W.P.(C) No.38617/2010 : 3 : application made by the petitioner for equivalency certificate and pass orders thereon without any further delay. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks