IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:-
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/6TH CHAITHRA, 1936
W.P.(C).No.113 of 2014 (L)
---------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-
--------------------------
BRIDGIT MEGHA. P.S., AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.SANTOSH DAVID,
RESIDING AT PADUA VILLA,
CHURCH ROAD, CHERUVIKKAL, SREEKARIYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 017.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.AJAKUMAR
SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON
SRI.S.SUJITH.
RESPONDENT(S):-
---------------------------
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
OFFICE OF THE CEE, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHINAGAR,
PIN - 695 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
3. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM,
VIKAS BHAVANP.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
4. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL.
R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19-03-2014, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.114/2014, THE COURT ON 27-03-2014
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
WP(C).No.113 of 2014 (L)
-----------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-
--------------------------------------
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT/ADMISSION MEMO DATED 17/10/2013.
EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MADRAS UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS.
EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE.
EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG
WITH THE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR.
EXT.P5(a): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 13/06/2013.
EXT.P6: COPY OF THE UGC CIRCULAR F.NO.UGC/DEB/2013
DATED 14/10/2013.
EXT.P7: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE LOK AYUKTA DATED 24/10/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-
-----------------------------------------
EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SAID MEMO NO.Ac.C/26316/2012
DATED 11.4.2013.
vku/- ( true copy )
K. Vinod Chandran, J
----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.113 of 2014-L & 114 of 2014-L
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2014
JUDGMENT
Identical question is raised in both the writ petitions;
whether the graduate degree obtained by the petitioners, being
Bachelor of Business Administration offered by the Madras University
through its Distance Education Programme, could be considered as
an eligible qualification for admission to the Government Law College,
Thiruvananthapuram, affiliated to the University of Kerala, the 3rd
respondent; to its Three Year LL.B Course.
2. Both the petitioners appeared in the Common Entrance
Examination conducted by the 1st respondent, the Commissioner for
Entrance Examinations, as per the "Prospectus for Admission to
Three Year LL.B. Course, Kerala 2013-14", produced as Exhibit P3.
The graduate course carried on by the petitioners was successfully
completed and the same has been recognized as equivalent by the
Mahatma Gandhi University, as is evident from Exhibit P4. The cause
of action for the writ petitions arose when the 2nd respondent, the
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 2 -
Principal of the College, refused to admit the petitioners for want of an
Eligibility Certificate from the 3rd respondent-University. The Eligibility
Certificate required, was to be issued by the respondent-University,
certifying that such degree offered by the Madras University is
equivalent to the BBA of the 3rd respondent, so as to enable the
student to enroll for higher studies in the 3rd respondent-University.
3. The prospectus issued by the 1st respondent provides
by Clause 6(ii) that the candidate seeking admission to the course
should be a graduate in any faculty of any University in Kerala or of
any other Universities, recognized by any of the Universities in Kerala
as equivalent thereto. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the graduate qualification of the petitioners having
been recognized by the Mahatma Gandhi University, they were
entitled to appear for and get allotment of the seat in the Common
Entrance Examination for admission to the Three Year LL.B. Course
2013-14.
4. The petitioners were also permitted to be admitted to
the Three Year LL.B. course by an interim order dated 02.01.2014.
The petitioners rely on Thomas M.Koshy v. Commissioner for
Entrance Examination [2013 (2) KLT 770], which considered the
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 3 -
prospectus of the earlier years, wherein the stipulation was the
production of Eligibility Certificate from the University concerned.
This Court held that the same can only be a 'draftsman's error' and it
was observed that it was for the Commissioner for Entrance
Examinations to make proper corrections in the prospectus to the
appropriate extent, lest the anomaly should prevail. It was in the
context of this judgment, it is argued, that the prospectus has now
been changed to Eligibility Certificate from a University in Kerala in
Clause 16(viii) of the prospectus under the heading "documents to be
produced at the time of admission". The petitioners seek for a
declaration that, in view of the Eligibility Certificate regarding their
graduate degree granted by the Mahatma Gandhi University, they are
entitled to be admitted to the Three Year LL.B. course carried on by
the University of Kerala also, going by the clear terms in Exhibit P3
prospectus.
5. The learned counsel for the University, however, asserts
their supremacy in prescribing eligibility conditions to be enrolled for
higher studies in their University. The Academic Council of the 3rd
respondent-University has such powers, of deciding the eligibility of a
course carried on by any University outside the State of Kerala and it
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 4 -
cannot depend on the decision of an Academic Council of another
University within Kerala and it will not lie in the mouth of the 1st
respondent to prescribe or alter the conditions of eligibility.
6. The Entrance Examination is conducted for admission
to the four Government Law Colleges and one private Self-financing
Law College, the latter presumably by agreement entered into by the
State with the private management, as a measure to ensure that merit
is not diluted. The Government Law Colleges, obviously are, directly
under the State and though the State has the power to regulate
admissions, to their colleges and those colleges under the private
managements which have entered into agreements with the State,
that cannot lead to any dilution of standards prescribed by the
respondent-University. The respondent-University maintains that
unless and until a qualifying degree has been recognized by the
respondent-University, no person can carry on any course offered by
it. The learned Standing Counsel also relies on a Division Bench
decision of this Court, reported in Varghese v. Director of Medical
Education [1987 (2) KLT 673], to contend that the prospectus cannot
override the University Statutes and administrative instructions, will
not cure, ineligibility as per the University Statutes.
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 5 -
7. Before looking at the legal issue, this Court has to look
at the various clauses in the prospectus. The academic eligibility for
admission, as has been indicated under Clause 6(ii), is a graduate
degree recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala. The Eligibility
Certificate, included in the documents to be produced at the time of
admission, was also, the Eligibility Certificate from a University in
Kerala. It is to be noticed that the Government Law Colleges at
Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, Thrissur and Kozhikode are
respectively under three Universities in Kerala. The one at
Thiruvananthapuram under the University of Kerala, those at
Ernakulam and Thrissur under the Mahatma Gandhi University and
the one at Kozhikode under the Calicut University. It is to be
immediately noticed in this context that the petitioners, if they were
fortuitously allotted to the two Government Colleges under the
Mahatma Gandhi University or the private self-financing college, also
under the very same University; then they would have been entitled to
continue the Three Year LL.B. course. On completion of such course,
the immediate end result of enrolment to the Bar Council of Kerala
would also follow and they would be treated as equivalent to the LL.B
graduates all over the State, nay country.
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 6 -
8. The prospectus, under Clause 15, speaks of
'Centralised Allotment Process and Online Submission of Options',
thus enabling the students to make an option, in accordance with their
choice for allotment to either of the collegs stipulated thereunder. The
eligibility for registering options under Clause 15.1(e) prescribes that
the eligibility conditions, regarding nativity and academic
qualifications, of the prospectus should be ensured and that such
academic eligibility should be satisfied on the date of admission to the
course. It is also stipulated that the Principal/Head of the Institution
will be responsible for verification of eligibility conditions as prescribed
in the prospectus, at the time of admission and only those candidates
who are qualified as prescribed, shall be admitted, irrespective of the
fact of allotment. It is also highlighted, by way of a note under Clause
15.1, that since different Universities are offering different
subjects/papers for the LL.B Courses, the candidate should ascertain
from the colleges regarding the courses and subjects offered by the
respective Universities before submitting options.
9. Looking at the entire provisions in the prospectus, a
candidate proposing to seek admission to the Three Year LL.B
Course would normally be held to understand that the academic
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 7 -
eligibility conditions are only those, stated in the prospectus. The
controversy itself would not have arisen if the 1st respondent was
careful to include a clause in the prospectus that despite allotment as
per the prospectus, the eligibility for admission would depend on the
conditions prescribed by each University, upon which necessarily a
candidate would have had to enquire about the same, before
exercising his option.
10. The Bench decision of this Court cited by the
University [Varghese (supra)], declared that the University Statutes
are not overridden by the contrary provisions in the prospectus. The
said case arose with respect to a dispute between the 1st and 3rd rank
holder in an Entrance Examination, to the one seat available, for
admission to the Post Graduate Course in Dentistry. While the 1st rank
holder was a Graduate in Dental Surgery from the Annamalai
University in Tamil Nadu, the 3rd respondent had such degree from the
Kerala University. The Selection Committee, decided that the
admission of graduates from outside University would depend upon
recognition of their degrees by the Kerala University. The 3rd rank
holder challenged the admission on the ground that the 1st rank
holder's degree was not recognized by the Kerala University.
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 8 -
Subsequently, the degree was recognized by the University, which
gave rise to a controversy as to whether the eligibility should be on
the date of application or could be later on. This Court is not
concerned with that controversy.
11. The prospectus in that case, issued by the
Government, prescribed as eligibility; a graduate degree in Dentistry
from the Kerala University or any University recognized by the Kerala
University with not less than one year experience in
clinical/teaching/House Surgeoncy. The Kerala University Statues,
however, provided that the threshold eligiblity for a candidate having
graduate degree from an outside University, recognized by the
University of Kerala, would be that; such graduate qualification was
acquired two years prior to seeking admission, to the M.D.S. Course.
The 1st rank holder in the Entrance Examination admittedly had not
completed two years after obtaining his graduate qualification from an
outside University. The Division Bench held so:
"When the Academic body like the University prescribes the
conditions for eligibility for admission to a Post graduate
course, it would be wholly "inappropriate for the High Court"
to mitigate the rigour of the rule by any interpretative device.
When, therefore, the person who has to his credit only an
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 9 -
equivalent Degree or qualification and the University insists
that he becomes eligible only after two years of 'maturity', it
is the mandate of an academic body, the demand of the
University statutes. No person can gain admission to a post
Graduate course in medicine or Dental Science unless he
fulfils the conditions stipulated under the University Act,
Statutes or Regulations".
The Division Bench in coming to such a finding, relied on a decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.N.Chanchala v. State of Mysore
[AIR 1971 SC 1762], which held so:
"The medical colleges in question are not university colleges
but have been set up and are being maintained by the State
Government from out of public funds. Since they are affiliated
to one or the other of the three universities, the Government
cannot frame rules or act inconsistently with the ordinances or
the regulations of the universities laying down standards of
eligibility" [para 16].
It is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge, who dealt with
Thomas M.Koshy (supra) was not apprised of the Division Bench
Judgment or the Supreme Court judgment.
12. Thomas M.Koshy dealt with a similar controversy as
in the instant case, but the roles of the respective Universities were
reversed. The petitioner therein was agraduate from Sambalpur
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 10 -
University, having obtained the graduate degree in a two year duration
course. This degree was recognized by the Kerala University; but the
candidate was allotted to a college under the Mahatma Gandhi
University, which University declined admission for reason of there
being no recognition of the Academic Council of that University. The
learned Single Judge had, in fact, elaborately examined the
provisions of the prospectus and also noticed the circumstance of a
candidate alloted to a college under one University being declined of
admission for reason of his graduate qualification not having been
recognized by that University, while a similar candidate, who has
identical qualification, would be accepted by another University within
the State. It was in this context that the learned Single Judge held so
in paragraph 17:-
"17. The usage of the 'definite article' in Clause 17(viii)
as to the Eligibility Certificate to be obtained, referring to "the
University concerned", can only be the 'draft man's error'
and it should be read and understood so as to mean that the
'Eligibility Certificate' can be obtained from any of the
Universities in Kerala. It is for the first respondent to make
proper correction in the prospectus to the appropriate extent,
lest the anomaly should prevail, leading to unnecessary
litigations".
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 11 -
13. It is the case of the petitioners that this had prompted
the first respondent to have changed the stipulation in the prospectus,
to Eligibility Certificate of a University in Kerala. One has to
pointedly notice the observation of the Division Bench extracted
herein above that the rigour prescribed by the statutes cannot be
mitigated by the High Court by an interpretative device.
14. With due respect, I concede inability to persuade
myself to accept the dictum laid down in Thomas M.Koshy (supra)
and also the change in the prospectus suggested. What was intended
earlier was that the academic eligibility would depend upon the
prescription by the respective Universities. What was required in the
earlier years, was an Eligibility Certificate from the University, which
words though anomalous, was supposed to indicate the primacy of
the respective University Statutes, over the provisions of the
prospectus, declared by the Division Bench of this Court as also the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. The Commissioner for Entrance Examination had even
specified in the prospectus, that the syllabi of the course conducted
by the respective colleges would have to be ascertained by each
candidate before exercising option. In my view, it would have been
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 12 -
appropriate to have included a specification that the eligibility of a
graduate degree from an outside University, should be ensured from
the respective Universities. The option then would be exercised only
on that basis. It is evident that the judgment in Thomas M.Koshy
(supra) was rendered without noticing the Division Bench decision of
this Court in Varghese (supra) and that of the Supreme Court in
D.N.Chanchala (supra). Going by the binding judgments of a Division
Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prospectus
cannot override the University Statutes or the Regulations brought in,
under the Statute. As far as the BBA Degree of Madras University,
through distance education, the same has been declined equivalence
by the 3rd respondent-University on the application by another student
[Exhibit R3(a)]. Hence, the denial of the Principal to admit the
petitioners to the Three Year LL.B course is in accordance with the
regulations of the 3rd respondent-University; which action cannot be
faulted. Now the question is as to whether the petitioners, who were
provisionally admitted, could be continued.
16. The Supreme Court has in a number of decisions,
considered the question of eligibility and the principles of equity, in
directing continuance in a course even when the candidate does not
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 13 -
fulfil the eligibility criteria, when such action has been in consequence
of a default on the part of the University. In Shri Krishnan v.
Kurukshetra University [(1976) 1 SCC 311] the University had
issued admission card to a student to appear in Part I Law
examination and the admission was challenged only at the time of
Part II of the Law examination, that too on a ground that the
candidate, who was employed under the Government, had not
produced a Consent Certificate from his employer. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court found that such a stipulation was not there and also
held that it was the duty of the College as also the University to
scrutinise the papers as to the threshold requirement and no
subsequent cancellation can be made on the ground of non-fulfilment
of requirements. Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University [(1990) 3
SCC 23] was a case in which the candidate was admitted by the Law
College and the University and also permitted to appear for pre-Law
and Intermediate Law examinations. The College and the University
were held to be estopped from refusing to declare the results of the
examination on the ground of his ineligibility for admission to the Law
course. Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal
[(2009) 1 SCC 610] was a case in which the appellant-University had
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 14 -
recognized the regular courses and the correspondence courses in
M.A. conducted by Annamalai University; but, however, had declined
such recognition to M.A. (OUS) Course through Distance Education
[Open University System]. It was held so in paragraphs 15 and 16:
15. The first respondent has passed his MA (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 the
appellant University has recognised MA (English) (OUS) of
Annamalai University through distance education as
equivalent to MA of appellant University. Thus, it has to be
held that the first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility
criterion of the appellant University for admission to the
three year law course.
16. The first respondent made a faint attempt to
contend that the distance education system includes
"correspondence courses" and therefore, recognition of MA
(correspondence course) as equivalent to MA course of the
appellant University would amount to recognition of MA, OUS
(distance education) course, as an equivalent. For this
purpose, he relied upon the definition of "distance education
system" in Section 2(e) of the Indira Gandhi National Open
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 15 -
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 the 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".
17. It is to be specifically noticed that in Gurunanak
University (supra), despite the above finding, the respondent therein
was permitted to continue the course on the peculiar facts of the
case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the fact that the student
was admitted through a common entrance test and was allowed to
write the 1st Semester Examination and the student was not guilty of
any suppression or misrepresentation. The petitioner's admission and
continuance was due to some confusion in the University itself, as to
the recognition of the course. The cancellation of his admission, after
the 1st Semester Examination was challenged before the High Court
successfully. The Supreme Court was dealing with the appeal after
four years when the candidate had completed the course. In that
circumstance, it was held to be unfair and unjust to deny the benefit of
WP(C).Nos.113 & 114 of 2014 - 16 -
admission which was initially accepted and recognized by the
appellant-University.
18. In the present case, the College and the University
had, at the first instance itself declined admission on the question of
eligibility. The petitioners had prayed for a provisional order of
admission, which was granted by this Court in January, 2014. It is
also in such circumstance that this Court heard the matter out of turn
and with expediency. No grounds exist on equity. Binding precedents
would command this Court to steer away from interfering in an
academic matter, where the University has a fair amount of
supremacy in deciding on eligibility conditions. On the strength of the
binding precedents, it has to be held that the petitioners are
unqualified to be admitted to the Three Year LL.B Course of the
Kerala University.
Writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran
Judge.
vku/-
( true copy )
