Anna A. Baby v. University of Kerala and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT: ## THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/13TH BHADRA 1934 WP(C).No. 30482 of 2011 (I) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ANNA A.BABY, W/O.MATHEW ELIAS, AGED 28 YEARS, KURINJICKAL HOUSE, PERINGALA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 565. ## BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695581. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695581. 3. THE DIRECTOR, - INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695581. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- ## WP(C).No. 30482 of 2011 (I) ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: - P1 COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE. - P2 COPY OF THE B.A. DEGREE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER. - P3 COPY OF THE RANK CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY TO BY THE PETITIONER. - P4 COPY OF MSW DEGREE CERTIFICATE AWARDED BY KANNUR UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER AND - P5 COPY OF RANK CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER. - P6 COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. - P7 COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION FOR PERSONAL CONTACT PROGRAMME OF THE POST GRADUATE DIPLOMA COURSE. - P8 COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 31/5/2011 SHOWING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS SUBMITTED HER THESIS. - P9 COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 28/7/2009 - P10 COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 02/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. - P11 COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 28/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - P12 COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 10/11/2011. - P13 COPY OF APPLICATION FOR THE EXAMINATION 2009-10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. - P14 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 10/11/2011. WP(C).No. 30482 of 2011 (I) - P15 COPY OF MEMO DATED 11/5/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTOR. - P16 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 30/6/2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **W.P.(C).No. 30482 of 2012** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner seeks to challenge Ext.P15 communication directing her to surrender the admission card and to avail admission for the year 2010-2011 batch instead of 2009-2010 batch. 2. The facts in short, are the following. After acquiring the qualification of M.S.W. from Kannur University, the petitioner was admitted to the Post Graduate Diploma course in Child, Adolescent and Family Counseling conducted by the third respondent which is an institution under the University of Kerala. The admission was granted to 2009-2010 batch and the duration of the course is one year. She continued the course and the thesis was submitted for evaluation, as evident from Ext.P8. Actually she had obtained rank No.2 for M.S.W. course conducted by the Kannur University in the academic year 2006-2007. Ext.P9 is produced to show that the application of the petitioner for recognition of the course and equivalency certificate is being processed by the Kerala University. The recognition was granted by Ext.P10 dated 2.4.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner remitted the required fee for undergoing the examination by W.P.(C).No.30482/2011 -2- Ext.P12 Demand Draft dated 10.11.2011 along with the application, Ext.P13 which were acknowledged by Ext.P14. Ext.P15 has been issued thereafter. 3. In challenging Ext.P15, the petitioner contends that the delay on the part of the University to grant equivalency certificate for the M.S.W. course cannot prejudice the rights of the petitioner. After the admission was granted, 1½ years have elapsed and finally Ext.P10 equivalency certificate has also been granted. Therefore, it is pointed out that in no way the admission granted and the course undertaken by her can be eschewed and the direction to undergo the course afresh cannot be sustained. 4. This Court passed an interim order dated 16.11.2011 permitting the petitioner to write the examination provisionally. As directed by this Court, the marks obtained by the petitioner was produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, in a sealed cover and going by the same, the petitioner has secured 300/500 and she is eligible for award of 'C' Grade. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for a direction to declare the results of the petitioner and to award the degree. 5. The stand taken by the University in the counter affidavit, is that Ext.P10 is not retrospective and therefore the petitioner has to secure W.P.(C).No.30482/2011 -3- admission afresh. The examination was undertaken in the light of the interim order passed by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the University is estopped from contending otherwise, at the fag end of the career. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in **Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and others** (AIR 1990 SC 1075) in that regard. Reliance is also placed on the judgments of this Court in **Asok Chacko Thomas v. Mahatma Gandhi University** (2009 (4) KLT 607) and **Abhilash v. Mahatma Gandhi University** (2012 (2) KLT 926). It is also pointed out that actually the delay is on the part of the Academic Council in convening the meeting, whereas going by Chapter 7 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 the Academic Council shall meet ordinarily once in six months and as and when required by the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, it is submitted that the delay cannot be attributed to any action on the part of the petitioner and for the said reason also the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit as sought for. It is therefore submitted that the entire period of the course undertaken by the petitioner will be a waste if the contentions of the respondents are accepted. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the University mainly pointed out W.P.(C).No.30482/2011 -4- that the recognition granted by Ext.P10 cannot be retrospective and therefore the stand of the University is justified. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in **Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another** {(2009) 1 SCC 610} and **Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government** {(2009) 4 SCC 590}. 8. The facts of the case show that admission was granted to the petitioner to the 2009-2010 batch. The third respondent is an institution under the University itself. The petitioner was allowed to undertake the course and has completed the course also. True that Ext.P10 is dated 2.4.2011. The petitioner has already completed the course and has appeared for the examination as permitted by this Court . She secured the required marks also. In fact, in **Sanjay Kumar Katwal's case** {(2009) 1 SCC 610}, the Apex Court in para 19 held as follows with regard to the admission granted to a candidate: “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 W.P.(C).No.30482/2011 **==> picture [15 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and recognised by the appellant University.” It can be seen herein that it is after the expiry of the academic year the petitioner is asked to get admission again. The career for the said year and thereafter will be lost irretrievably for the petitioner for no fault of her. 9. In the light of the above, as a special case, the admission granted to the petitioner is entitled to be regularised. As noted already, the petitioner has already passed the examination also. Therefore, without treating it as a precedent, the University will regularise the admission granted as well as the examination undertaken by the petitioner and degree also will be awarded to the petitioner. Appropriate action as above, will be taken and petitioner will be granted degree certificate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. ## **(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)** **kav/**