AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The appeal is preferred by the University against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, directing the publication of the first semester result, as
also the consequential issuance of the Degree Certificate.
2.Learned Standing Counsel, Sri P.C.Sasidharan, points out Chapter XVIII of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977, wherein the eligibility for
conferring of Degree of Bachelor of Laws(Three year course)requires that the candidate should have satisfied the eligibility criteria for admission,
which is a Degree of the appellant University or a Degree of another University, accepted by the appellant as equivalent thereto. The respondent
herein does not satisfy that criteria, since he has obtained a Degree from the Karnataka University under the Open Stream, which is not recognized by
the Calicut University. Ext.P14 produced by the petitioner himself is referred to, to argue that only B.A, History and Kannada of the Karnataka State
Open University is recognised by the appellant University. It is argued that the Self-Financing College, in which the respondent undertook the Course,
admitted him illegally and without verifying the eligibility criteria. It is pointed out that despite the University having permitted the candidate to write the
exams, when it comes to the conferment of Degree, the same can be only in accordance with the regulations, which is evident from the First Statutes.
The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in M.G.University V Gis Jose [(2008(4) KLT 216(SC)]t o urge the
proposition that educational standards cannot be compromised by Courts and there is no room for misplaced sympathies, when the rule is otherwise.
Reliance is also placed on two unreported decisions, by one of us (KVC.J), to contend that despite the course having been completed, if the eligibility
criteria is not met, necessarily there could be no conferment of a Degree.
Dr.K.P.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would seek to distinguish the decisions placed reliance on, by the learned Standing
Counsel. Reliance is placed on Shri Krishnan V. Kurukshethra University (1976(1)SCC 311), Ashok Chand Singh V.University of Jodhpur
(1989(1)SCC 399), Sanadan Gowda V. Berhampur University (1990(3) SCC 23 )and Guru Nanak Dev University V. Sanjaykumar Katwal
(2009(1)SCC 610). It is argued that the University though withheld the first semester result, issued the mark list for all the other semesters. There is
no response for the application submitted by the appellant, wherein equivalency was sought, for the Degree obtained by the respondent from the
Karnataka University.
On facts, suffice it to notice that the respondent was admitted in the year 2013-2014 for the three year course in LLB with six semesters. The
appellant had obtained BBA in Aviation from the Karnataka University. The results for the first year examination was withheld and as per the
direction of the University, the respondent had also submitted an application for equivalence, which is produced as Ext.P11. There was no response to
Ext.P11. But later, the respondent was issued with the Hall tickets for the second to sixth semesters, as is seen from Exts.P5 to P9. The respondent
was also issued the mark lists for the above semesters, the last of which, for the 6th semester, is produced as Ext.P10. Later, the University refused
to issue Degree Certificate upon which the writ petition was filed.
Having gone through the decisions cited, there is a clear distinction made, in cases where initially itself, the University objected to the admission of
the candidate and those cases in which the admission and continuation in the course were without demur and after completion of the course, the
objection having been raised. The Honourable Supreme Court has treated the distinctive facts differently. In Gis Jose [supra], the candidate did not
have the minimum cut off marks prescribed for admission to the Post Graduate Course. The University had objected to her admission at the initial
stage and on the Principal having permitted the student to continue, a warning was issued. Ultimately, a memo was sent informing the student that her
request for continuation in the Post Graduate Course was rejected. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the claim of the student on the ground
that a strict approach would disrobe the student of the fruits of her efforts and that the confering of the Degree on the student
does not adversely affect a third party. The Division Bench also considered the fact that the student, having completed the Course, none gains by
declaring the admission a nullity.
In fact, in Gis Jose [supra] another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was noticed: Selin Mary Mammam V. Mahatma Gandhi University
(Civil Appeal No.689 of 2004 dated 3.2.2004). The learned Judges did not follow the aforesaid decision, since in that case, there were no timely
notices given regarding the irregular admission to the students as in the case of Gis Jose. In Gis Jose [supra], though it was argued that the Vice
Chancellor had allowed her to continue the Course, there was nothing produced to substantiate the said contention.
George Varghese John and Abdul Gafoor and others authored by one of us (KVC.J) sitting single, were also cases in which the University had
objected to the admission of the students at the very first stage. In both the cases, the students had continued by virtue of interim orders issued by this
Court, on admission of the writ petition. Eventually, when the writ petitions were heard, the objection of the University was upheld and the admissions
declared irregular. The students continued in the Course, only by virtue of the interim orders they obtained in the writ petition and hence took the risk
of the consequences, if ultimately the writ petitions are rejected.
In this context, reference can be made to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, which permitted the admissions to be regularised, after
the course completion, for reason of University having not, at the first instance, raised any objection against the admission; based on principles of
equity. Shri Krishnan [supra] was a case in which the student was allowed to appear in the Part I Examination, and objection was raised only at the
time of Part-II Examinations. The objection was also on the ground that the student, who was employed, had not produced a Consent Certificate from
his employer. It was held that it was the duty of the University and the College, to have verified the eligibility criteria regarding the threshold eligibility
for admission. It was held that there cannot be found any fraud, if the person on whom fraud is alleged to have been committed, could have
discovered the truth by due diligence. Sanadan Gowda [supra] was another case in which the candidate was admitted to the Law College and
allowed to sit for an examination, after which the University refused to declare the results. It was held that the University is estopped from refusing to
declare the results of examination and the student cannot be punished for the negligence of the Principal or the University authorities. Ashok Chand
Singh [supra] held that when a candidate conceals nothing from the University and was granted admission, he cannot be made to suffer by cancelling
his admission for the mistake committed by the authorities, in granting an admission contrary to University Statutes.
Guru Nanak Dev University [supra] was again a case in which the student had obtained a Post Graduate Degree in the Distance Education
Scheme. The appellant University had declared equivalent, the Post Graduate Courses of the University from which the student obtained the
qualifying Degree; but only of the Regular and Correspondence Courses and not the specific Degree under the Distance Education Stream. The
Honourable Supreme Court categorically held that equivalence is a technical matter and it cannot be implied or assumed. The contention that Distance
Education Stream includes Correspondence Courses, was also rejected on the ground that, if the appellant University treats Correspondence Courses
and Distance Education Courses separately, then the Courts would not interfere, as it is a clear matter of policy. However, while the appeal of the
University was allowed, the candidate was directed to be conferred with the Degree. This was on the ground that the candidate was admitted through
a Common Entrance Test, permitted to take First Semester Examination and he was not guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation of facts.
Looking at the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, which found the student
having disclosed the entire facts and the University having not scrutinised and verified his eligibility, applies squarely. The respondent had been
admitted and though his First Semester results were withheld, he was allowed to continue the course and participate in all the next five semesters. The
mark lists of the said semesters were also issued to him. The application made by him for equivalence after the withholding of the First Semester
Examinations, was not responded to, by the University. It was only after completion of course, when he was refused a Provisional Certificate, the
student approached this Court. The student was admitted in the year 2013-2014 and completed the course in the year 2015-2016. The writ petition is
filed in the year 2017. We cannot find the student to be at fault, since the University knew about his qualifying Degree, had first objected to it by
withholding his results and then permitted him to complete the course, as also issued the mark list for the remaining semester examinations; after an
application for equivalence was submitted. There was also no response to the application for equivalence.
We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and reject the appeal, confirming the directions to issue the mark list
for the First Semester Examinations and consequentially direct him to be conferred with a Graduate Degree by issuing the Degree Certificate. We
make it clear that our decision turns on the peculiar facts coming forth in this case.