Judgement needed???

Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr. dated 2008-10-21

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2252 OF 2006    

Guru Nanak Dev University ... Appellant  

 Vs.  

Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr. ... Respondents    

JUDGMENT    K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI :     

This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the  appellant-Guru Nanak Dev University against the judgment dated 5.7.2005 of a Division Bench of the High Court of  Punjab & Haryana, whereby the writ petition filed by the first    respondent herein was allowed approving his admission to the  LL.B. (three years professional) course at St. Soldier Law  College, Jalandhar, affiliated to the Appellant.   

2. The Government of Punjab authorized Punjab University  to conduct a Common Entrance Test for selection of students  for admission to three year LL.B. (Professional) course for the  session commencing from 2004-2005, for the various colleges  affiliated to or run by the said University and the appellant  university. The first respondent appeared for the entrance test  held on 8.7.2004 and was declared successful. He attended  the counselling and was selected and was admitted to St.  Soldier Law College at Jalandar (second respondent) affiliated  to appellant university. He paid the tuition fee of Rs.25000/-  to the second respondent and attended college regularly. The  final examinations of first semester were held in December,  2004. After scrutinizing the records relating to the first  respondent, the appellant university registered the first  respondent for the examination with Roll No.4723. The first  respondent appeared for the first semester examination.  

3. Thereafter, the appellant university wrote a letter dated  20.12.2004 informing the college that first respondent's basic  degree was M.A.(English) from Annamalai University through  Distance Education, which was not recognized by it and  therefore, his admission to LL.B. course should be cancelled.  The first respondent submitted a detailed representation  contending that his admission was valid. The appellant did  not agree and by letter dated 29.3.2005 directed the second  respondent college to cancel the admission of the first  respondent.    

4. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent filed a writ  petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, contending that he was eligible for admission as he possessed  a M.A. degree recognized as equivalent to M.A. degree of the  appellant-University and that his admission could not be  cancelled. The High Court accepted the contention of the first  respondent and directed that his admission to LL.B. course be     restored forthwith. The High Court rejected the contention of  the appellant that a bachelor's degree was a pre-condition for  admission to the LL.B course by holding that prescription of  M.A. was an alternative eligibility qualification for admission  to the course. These findings of the High Court are challenged  before us.    

5. The academic qualification prescribed for admission to  three years LL.B professional course (vide Handbook of  Information)is as follows:   "Candidates who have passed bachelor's Degree of  Guru Nanak Dev Universityor any other equivalent  examination recognized as such by the University  with not less than 45% marks; or Master's Degree of  Guru Nanak Dev University or of any other  University recognized as equivalent thereto."   

6. The appellant-University submitted that a Bachelor's  degree is a must for admission, and the Master's degree of the  appellant University (or the equivalent) was considered as an  eligible qualification for admission, only where the candidate  had not secured 45% marks in the Bachelor's degree course.  

7. This argument of the appellant-University is contested by  the first respondent, who appeared in person. According to  him, the provision relating to eligibility used the word "or"  between the two qualifications prescribed; and that indicated  that they were alternatives and possessing either of them  would make a candidate eligible. He submitted that as he  possessed M.A. (English) degree from the Annamalai  University, through Distance Education, under the Open  University System (OUS), he fulfilled the alternative  requirement prescribed, that is, a master's degree recognized  as equivalent to the master's degree of the appellant-  Universityand, therefore, he is eligible to get admission to  three years LL.B professional course.    

8. The prescription of eligibility criteria is very clear. It  requires a Bachelor's degree with not less than 45 marks or a  Master's degree. The university's contention that the  candidate must have a Bachelor's degree and only if his marks  are less than 45% in the Bachelor's degree course, the  Master's degree was to be considered, would mean that the  word `or' should be substituted by the words `in the event of  the candidate not having 45 marks in Bachelor's degree'.  Reading such words into the provision is impermissible. The  word `or' is disjunctive. No doubt, in some exceptional  circumstances, the word `or' has been read as conjunctive as  meaning `and', where the context warranted it. But the word  `or' cannot obviously be read as referring to a conditional  alternative, when such condition is not specified. In view of  the provision relating to eligibility being unambiguous and  using the word `or', it is clear that a Master's degree without a  Bachelor's degree will satisfy the eligibility requirement.   

9. The next contention of the university is that a person  without having a Bachelor's degree cannot have Master's degree. They contend that even according to the criteria  prescribed by Annamalai University for admission to MA, only  persons who have BA or equivalent degree, are eligible for  admission. They rely on the following eligibility criterion  prescribed by Annamalai University for admission to MA  degree course:   "Candidates who have passed the B.A. or B.Sc. Or  BOL or an examination of any other university,  accepted by the Syndicate as equivalent thereto,  with English under Part I/II/III, are eligible to join  MA Degree course in English. Preference will be  given to those who have studied English under Part  III."   

10. The Appellant University therefore contended that as the  first respondent did not possess a Bachelor's degree, the  Master's degree secured by him is irregular. On the other  hand, first respondent pointed out that the above eligibility  criteria prescribed by Annamalai University was for admission  to regular M.A. degree course or M.A. Correspondence Course;  and that the eligibility criteria for admission to Master's degree  programme under the Open University System (`OUS'), in the  Annamalai University - distance education, was as follows :    "Those who have completed the age of 21 as on 1st  July of the year of admission and have  subsequently passed the preparatory course  examination are eligible for admission."  

11. It is thus clear that under the OUS scheme, if a  candidate had passed the preparatory course examination for admission to MA (English) literature, he need not have a basic  Bachelor's degree. It is true that normally a student cannot  enroll for a Master's degree course unless he has a basic  Bachelor's degree in the chosen subject. But some universities  may provide for enrolment to a Master's degree course without  a basic Bachelor's degree course, if certain requirements are  fulfilled. Annamalai University has in fact made such a  provision for enrolment to M.A. course by distance education  (OUS).   

12. The last contention of the appellant university is that the  MA (OUS) qualification possessed by the first respondent is  not recognized as equivalent to the Master's degree of  appellant university. The appellant university has issued an  equivalency book containing the list of examinations of other  universities recognized by the appellant university. Clause (5)  of the said equivalency book reads thus :      "That correspondence courses conducted by other  Universities/Boards/Bodies be recognized as  equivalent to the corresponding (regular) examinations of this University provided that  regular examinations of those Universities/Boards/  Bodies already stand recognized as equivalent to  the corresponding examinations of this University  (Academic Council, dated 16.1.1990)."    The said equivalency book also shows that MA examination of  Annamalai University is recognized as equivalent to MA  examination of appellant university. But that may not be  sufficient. The appellant university in its additional affidavit  has clarified that there are three types of courses, as under:   (i) Regular Courses;   (ii) Correspondence Courses: (where the University  directly sends the course material to the students. There is therefore direct contact of the university  with the students).   (iii) Distance Education Courses: (where the University  concerned designates a franchisee/associate  institutions in the concerned local area and the  course material is then given by the said  franchisee/associate centre. There is no direct  contact between students and the University).   

13. The appellant university has categorically stated that  while regular courses and correspondence courses in MA  conducted by Annamalai university are recognized as  equivalent to the corresponding M.A. course of the appellant  university, M.A. (OUS) course through distance education  conducted by Annamalai university is not recognized by the  appellant university as equivalent to its M.A. course. The first  respondent has passed his M.A. (OUS) from Annamalai  University through distance education. Equivalence is a  technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed.  Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to  equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly  published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that appellant university has  recognized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to M.A. of appellant  university. Thus it has to be held that first respondent does  not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for  admission to three year law course.  

14. The first respondent made a faint attempt to contend  that the distance education system includes `correspondence  courses' and therefore recognition of M.A. (correspondence  course) as equivalent to M.A. course of appellant University,  would amount to recognition of M.A. - OUS (distance  education) course, as an equivalent. For this purpose, he  relied upon the definition of "distance education system" in  section 2(e) of Indira Gandhi National Open University Act,  1985. But there is nothing to show that Annamalai University  has treated correspondence course and OUS (distance  education) course as the same. What is more important is that  the appellant university does not wish to treat correspondence  course and Distance Education Course as being the same.  That is a matter of policy. Courts will not interfere with the  said policy relating to an academic matter.   

15. Therefore the appeal of the University deserves to be  allowed. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court holding  that M.A. English degree (OUS) granted by Annamalai   University through distance education is equivalent to MA  degree of appellant university, is set aside.    

16. However, on the peculiar facts of the case, the first  respondent is entitled to relief. The first respondent was admitted through a Common Entrance Test process during  2004-2005. He was permitted to take the first semester  examinations by the university. He is not guilty of any  suppression or misrepresentation of facts. Apparently, there  was some confusion in the appellant university itself as to  whether the distance education course attended by the first  respondent was the same as correspondence course which  was recognized. The first respondent was informed that he  was not eligible, only after he took the first semester  examination. He has however also been permitted to continue  the course and has completed the course in 2007. He has  succeeded before the High Court. Now after four years, if it is  to be held that he is not entitled to admission, four years of his career will be irretrievably lost. In the circumstances, it  will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the     benefit of admission which was initially accepted and  recognized by the appellant university. This Court in Shri  Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, (AIR 1976 SC  376), has observed that before issuing the admission card to a  student to appear in Part-I Law Examination, it was the duty  of the university authorities to scrutinize the papers; and  equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law  before submitting the form to the university to see that it  complied with all requirements; and if they did not take care  to scrutinize the papers, the candidature for the examinations  cannot be cancelled subsequently on the ground of non-  fulfilment of requirements. In Sanatan Gauda vs.  Berhampur University (AIR 1990 SC 1075), this Court held  where the candidate was admitted to the Law course by Law  College and University also permitted him to appear for Pre- Law and Intermediate Law examinations, the college and the  university were estopped from withholding his result on the  ground that he was ineligible to take admission in Law course.  Having regard to the above we are of the view that irrespective  of the fact that M.A. English (OUS) degree secured by first     respondent from AnnamalaiUniversity through distance  education, may not be recognized as an equivalent to the  Master's degree of the appellant university, his admission to  the law course should not be cancelled. The appellant  University is directed to treat the admission as regular  admission and permit the first respondent to appear for the  law examination and if he has already appeared for the  examination, declare his result. The appeal is disposed of  accordingly.    

............................ CJI 

(K G Balakrishnan)    

.............................J. 

(R V Raveendran) 

New Delhi October 21, 2008.    

Dear sir, thank u for this Judgement.

With all due respect Shree Sir , Visit Suprem court of India, Judgement System. I also seen this said judgement on No.38. 

Thank You Very much sir for enlighting us on the above fact through this case law!

Regards

Apurva

Dear Prakash Sir, 

Thanks very much for getting back to me on this judgement. I may very well have seen that judgement  reference to  supremecourt judgement system when I did a search for the name but didn't make the connection.And by the way, thanks again to you for an extremely valuable tool for Lawyers  and  Law practitioners. Almost every day it has something of real value.

Regards and Thanks,

Shree.

My friend, after SSC , joined Airforce. There he did AMIE. After leaving Airforce he applied for admission for LLB. It was denied on the ground that he was not bachelor. He filed Writ Petition against Bar Council of India and Bombay Univwersity. Bar Council of India then , accepted AMIE to be equivalent to Bachelor degree for the purpose of admission to LLB. He completed LLB.

My friend is an openuniversity M.A and then m.phil , he got admission in 2008 to 3 yars llb in andhra, he has already passed all the 5 semesters, he is now in the final semester, please tell me whether he can obtain his llb degree from the university after passing final semester in may 2011. whether university can refrain from giving llb degree.