University Of Calicut vs Allen N.J
2022 Latest Caselaw 855 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
                                  &
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 1ST MAGHA, 1943
                          WA NO. 841 OF 2018
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 10718/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:

    1       UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
            CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,MALAPPURAM - 673
            635,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

    2       THE VICE CHANCELLOR
            UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,CALICUT UNIVERSITY
            P.O.,MALAPPURAM - 673 635.

    3       THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS
            UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,CALICUT UNIVERSITY
            P.O.,MALAPPURAM - 673 635.

            BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSI



RESPONDENT:

            ALLEN N.J.
            THIRD YEAR (6TH SEMESTER) STUDENT OF BACHELOR OF
            LAWS(LLB)(REGISTRER NO.LBANBLL001), BHAVAN'S
            N.A.PALKHIVALAACADEMY FOR ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES AND
            RESEARCHKOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT NEELANKAVIL HOUSE,NEAR
            AVHS PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 001.

            BY ADVS.
            DR.K.P.PRADEEP
            SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
            SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR
            SRI.T.T.BIJU
            SMT.T.THASMI
            SMT.ANJANA KANNATH


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BBEN FINNALY HEARD ON 18.01.2022, THE
COURT ON 21.01.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.841/2018                            2



                     K. Vinod Chandran & C.Jayachandran,JJ
                 -------------------------------------------
                        Writ Appeal.No.841 of 2018
                  -------------------------------------------
                Dated, this the 21st day of January, 2022

                                   JUDGMENT

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.

3. The learned counsel relies on the decision of

the Honourable Supreme Court in M.G.University V Gis Jose

[(2008(4) KLT 216(SC)] to 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

Sd/-

K.Vinod Chandran, Judge

sd/-

C.Jayachandran, Judge

lgk