## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
## **FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935**
## **WP(C).No. 28500 of 2013 (J)**
**----------------------------**
**PETITIONER(S):**
- **--------------------------**
**ALESTON T M, S/O.THANKARAJAN C, T.M COTTAGE, PONVILA, AYINA (P.O), PARASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**
**BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON**
**RESPONDENT(S):**
**----------------------------**
**1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERISTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, ERNAKULAM 682 022.**
**2. HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS COCHIN UNIVERISTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERISTY P.O, ERNAKULAM 682 022.**
**R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Kss**
**WP(C).No. 28500 of 2013 (J)**
**-----------------------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:**
**---------------------------------------**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 21-06-2013.**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES RECEIPT DATED 10-07-2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 08-11-2013.**
**EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12-11-2013.**
**EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16-11-2013.**
**EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CAST CERTIFICATE.**
**EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF B.E DEGREE.**
**RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE:**
**--------------------------------------------**
**ANNEXURE R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS OF THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.**
**/TRUE COPY/**
**P.A.TO JUDGE**
**Kss**
## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.**
------------------------------------------
## **W.P.(C)No.28500 of 2013**
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6[th ] day of December, 2013
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioner is a Bachelor of Engineering(BE) graduate, who finished the course under the ANNA University and applied for M.Tech in the first respondent University. The eligibility for admission to the M.Tech Course for the admissions to the academic year 2013-2014 was made clear as per the Prospectus, issued by the University, which was as under :
- _a) A candidate should acquire First Class (60%) marks in qualifying exam from any recognized University or Institution._
- _b) A valid Gate score._
- _c) In the absence of GATE qualified candidate NONGATE candidates can be admitted on the basis of DAT._
2. At the time of seeking admission to the University ie.,
the date of application which falls in January, the petitioner admittedly had not completed his BE Course. The petitioner applied for the M.Tech Course and also qualified in the Department Admission Test(DAT) conducted by the University
W.P.(c).No.28500 of 2013
: 2 :
which is an alternate requirement, on a candidate not having a valid GATE score. The petitioner having achieved a valid score in the DAT was eligible for making an application for the entrance test conducted by the first respondent University, subject however to qualifying the graduate degree with 60%. Though at the time of application, the petitioner did not have the mark list, before admission, the petitioner received the mark list and he seems to have not qualified the graduate degree with 60% as is required by the first respondent University. The petitioner, however was admitted to the second respondent and on scrutiny made by the University, it was found out that the petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria required for getting admission to M.Tech Course in the University. Hence, Ext.P3 communication was issued, which is assailed before this Court.
3. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3, by which, his admission to the M.Tech course stood cancelled. The petitioner's contention is that while he applied for admission and appeared in the DAT, he only had the Cumulative Grade Point Average(CGPA) of his graduate course, under the ANNA University and the same
W.P.(c).No.28500 of 2013
: 3 :
being 6.27, he was of the impression that he had 62.7% marks in his graduate degree. Only on receiving the mark list, he was informed that he had less than 60%, disentiling him from admission to the M.Tech Course under the respondent University. The petitioner having produced the mark list, was admitted to the College and has now been asked to forfeit his admission, which is illegal and arbitrary, is the contention.
4. Admittedly, at the time of admission, the petitioner had received the mark list from the ANNA University. The petitioner was also aware that the Prospectus prescribed an eligibility criteria of minimum of 60% in the graduate level for being eligible to be considered for admission to the M.Tech Course. Despite the petitioner being aware of his ineligibility, the petitioner chose to get himself admitted after paying the fees. True, the petitioner had submitted his mark list, which were taken up for scrutiny while he was continuing the course, more specifically when the process of the registration for first semester regular examinations were underway. The University having found that the petitioner lacks the eligibility criteria, has now
W.P.(c).No.28500 of 2013
: 4 :
cancelled his admission.
5. It cannot at all be stated that the University had acted in a manner which prompted the petitioner to arrange his affairs in such a manner as to cause any prejudice. The petitioner himself who was aware of his ineligibility chose to get himself admitted without getting any clarification from the University.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the University has filed a statement, in which, the extract of the Prospectus has been produced as Annexure-R1(a). The Prospectus indicates that even students who have passed all the Courses except those prescribed for the final year/semester of the qualifying degree/diploma would be considered for admission; on production of the original mark lists of all previous examinations, the Transfer Certificate and a Certificate from the Head of the Institution last attended that they have completed the programme of study and have appeared or are appearing for all the examinations in the courses of the final year/semester of the qualifying degree/diploma. This is the provision by which, the partitioner sought admission to the course and obtained it. The
W.P.(c).No.28500 of 2013
: 5 :
Prospectus also categorically states that if the students so fail to attain the prescribed eligibility for admission before the date of registration for the regular 1st semester examination of the programme to which they were granted admission, they shall not to be permitted to continue the programme and shall be summarily removed from the rolls of the University.
7. The provision in the Prospectus clearly indicates that the scrutiny of eligibility of persons admitted to a course would be made at the time of registration for the regular 1[st] Semester Examinations. The petitioner hence cannot have any claim that he was admitted by the University despite his having no eligibility and was allowed to continue in the course for four months. The petitioner being aware of the prescription in the prospectus of minimum requirement of 60% at the graduate level and also being aware of his ineligibility for reason of not having the minimum 60%; chose to get himself admitted in the course. The petitioner was perfectly aware of his ineligibility and also the stage at which the University takes up the certificate for scrutiny. The University having taken up the certificate for scrutiny at the
W.P.(c).No.28500 of 2013
: 6 :
time of registration for regular 1[st] Semester examination, as is categorically declared in the Prospectus, found that the petitioner was ineligible and cancelled the petitioner's admission. This Court is of the opinion that the action of the University, cannot be faulted. The petitioner cannot have a valid claim to be continued in the higher post-graduate course for reason only of having been admitted to the course.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **K.S.Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra[2001 (10) SCC 264]** drew a distinction between adjusting equities under Article 226 and the High Court assuming the role of the Government or the Medical Council of India and cautioned the courts from waiving the mandatory requirement of law in exercise of its extraordinary power and directing an authority to act contrary to statutory prescriptions.
The writ petition, hence, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.**
ln
