Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr.

A **B** .. **F** [2008] 14 S.C.R. 961 GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY _v_ SANJAY KUMAR KATWAL & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2252 of 2006) OCTOBER 21, 2008 -t' **[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J** .] _Education -Admission to LLB. (Professional) Course_ - _Cancellation of admission by University, after permission_ c _granted to the candidate for appearing in examination_ - _On the ground that eligibility qualification i.e. Master's degree under Open University System not recognized_ - _Held: University rightly directed cancellation of admission as eligibility qualification of the candidate was ndt recognized by the Uni-_ D _versify_ - _However, in view of the facts that the candidate took admission without suppression or mis-representation of facts, and was permitted to appear in the examination and has completed the course, his admission not to be cancelled._ _Education- Equivalence in educa_tional degrees_ - _Held:_ **F** _Is_ a _technical academic and policy matter, not to be interfered with, by Courts_ - _However, equivalence cannot be implied or assumed_ - _Decision of an academic body of University re/at-_ , _ing to equivalence should be by_ a _specific order or resolution, duly published_ - _Policy Decision._ **F** -'i ., · **Respondent No. 1 was declared** succe~sful **in Common Entran·ce Test for apmission to three y·ears LLB. (Professional) Course, conducted by** appellant~Univer­ **sity. He was admitted in the respondent-college. The University also permitted him to appear in the first seme_ster G examination after scrutinizing his records. Thereafter, theUniversity asked the responden-t-College to cancel the admission of respondent No. 1, on the ground that his basic degree for admission to the** LL~B. **Course i.e. M.A.** 001 **H** 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]14 S.C.R. ~ F A (English) from Annamalai University through Distance Education was not recognized by it. Respondent No. 1 challenged the same by filing a writ petition. The High · Court allowed_ the petition, directing the University to restore the admission of respondent No. 1. B In the instant appeal, the University contended that Master's degree was considered as an eligible qµalification for admission only where the candidate had not secured 45% marks in the Bachelor's degree course; and that Master's degree under Open University System (OLIS) c was not recognized as equivalent to the Master's degree ·of the appellant-University. Dis_posing of the appeal, the Court > HELD: 1.1 In view of the provisiop relating to eligibilO ity b~ing unanibiguous, it is clear th* a Master's degree without a Bachelor's degree will satisfy the· eligibility requirement. The prescription of eligibility Griteria as per the Handbook of Information is very clear. It requires a Ba(l:helor's degree with not less than 45 marks or a Master's ·degree. The University's contention that the can- > E didate must have a Bachelor's degree and only if his marks are less than .45%. in the Ba'chelor's degree course_; the. Master's deeree was to be considered, would mean that. the word 'or' should be substituted by the, words 'in the event of the candidate. not having 45% marks in F Bachelor~s degree'. Reading such words· into the provision i1. irhpermissible: The ~ord 'or' is di~junctive. No doubt, m some exceptional circumstances, the 'wor:d 'or' has 'been' read as conjunctive as meaning 'and.~ where the context warranted it. But the word 'or' carinot obviously· be r:ead as referring to a conditional alternative, when 'such conditio~ri is not specified. [Para 8] (966-F, G, H; .967•A) ...... •. _f-_ 1.2 Under the Open University System (OUS), if a candidate had passed 'th.e preparatory course examination . ·H . for admission to MA (English), he need not have a basic ' . GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY v. SANJAY 963 KUMAR KATWAL & ANR. ~ ~- _-f_ ~.4 Bachelor's degree. It is true that normally a student canA not enroll for a Master's degree course unless he has a basic Bachelor's degree in the chosen subject. But some Universities may provide for enrplment to a Master's degree course without a basic Bachelor's degree course, if certain requirements are fulfilled. Annamalai University B has, in fact, made such a provision for enrolment to M.A. course by Distance E;ducation (OUS). [Para 11] (967-H; 968-A, B) .,.. -; 2.1 Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the aca- c demic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Respondent No. 1 has not been able to produce any document to show that appellant university has rec-. o~nized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamalai University D thrc;>ugh distance education as equivalent to M.A .. of appellant University. Thus, respondent no. 1 does not fulfil the eligibility ·criterion of the appellant university for ad, mission to three years law course.· There is nothing to show that Annamalai University has treated correspondence course and OUS (distance education) course as E the same. Moreover, the appellant-University does not wish .fo treat correspondence course and Distance Edu. cation Course as being the same. That is ·a matter of policy. Courts ~ill not interfere with the said policy relating to an academic matter. Paras 13, 14] (969-C; 0, F, G, H) F _l_ / F 2.2 However, on the peculiar facts of the case that respondent no. 1 was admitted through a Common Entrance Test process during 2004-2005; he was permitted to take the first semester examinations by the University; he is not guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation G of facts, his admission to the law course should not be cancell~d. Apparently, there was some confusion in the appellant-University itself as to whether the distance education course attended by respondent no.1 was the same as correspondence course which was recognized. Re- H > 964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A spondent no.1 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. [Para 16] (970-B, C, D) _Shri Krishan vs: The Kurukshetra University,_ AIR 1976 8 SC 376 and _Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University_ AIR 1990 SC 1075 - relied on. ## CASE LAW REFERENCE c D AIR 1976 SC 376 Relied on. Para 16 AIR 1990 SC 1075 I Relied on. . Para 16 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICJION: Civil Appeal No. 2252 I I . ' of 2006 From the final Judgment and Order dated 5. 7.2005 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 5692 of 2005 · Man9j Swarup for the Appellant. E Sanjay Kumar Katwal-Respondent-ln~Person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. KG.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI : 1. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the appellant-Guru Nanak Dev Univer. sity against the judgment dated 5.7.2005 of a Division Bench F of the High Court of Punjab & Haryaria, whereby the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein was allowed approving his admiSsion to the LL.B. (three years professional) course at · St. Soldier Law College, Jalandhar, affiliated to the Appellant. ~· G :--2. The Government of Punjab authorized Punjab University to conduct a Common Entrance Test for selection of students for admission to three year LL.B. (Professional) course for the session commencing _fr9m_ 2004-2005, for the various colleges affiliated to or run by the said University and the appelH lant university. The first respondent appeared for the entr~nce - _1-_ 965 ~ _-+_ GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY _v._ SANJAY KUMAR \ KATWAL & ANR. [K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI] _ _,,, test held on 8. 7.2004 and was declared successful. He attended A the counselling and was selected and was admitted to St. Soldier Law College at Jalandar (second respondent) affiliated to appellant university. He paid the tuition fee of Rs.25000/- to the second respondent and attended college regularly. The final examinations of first sem~ter were held in December, 2004. B After scrutinizing the~ records relating to the first respondent, the appellant university registered the first respondent for the examination with Roll No.4723. The first respondent appeared for the first semester examinati6n. 3. Thereafter, the appellant university wrote a letter dated[c ] 20.12.2004 informing the college that first respondent's basic degree was M.A.(English) from Annamalai University through Distance Education, which was not recognized by it and therefore, his admission to LL.B. course should be cancelled. The first respondent supmitted a detailed representation contendD ing that his admission was valid. The appellant did not agree and by letter dated 29.3.2005 directed the second respondent college to cancel the admission of the first respondent. ~ 4. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of. Punjab & Haryana, contending that he was eligible for admission as he possessed a M.A. degree recognized as equivalent to M.A. degree of the.appellantUniversity and that his admission could not be cancelled. The High Court accepted the contention of the first respondent and directed that his admission to LL.B. course be restored forthwith. The High Court rejected the· contention of the appellant that a bachelor's degree was a pre-condition for admission to the LLB course by holding that prescription of M.A. was an alternative eligibility qualification for admission to the course. These findings _of_ the High Court are challenged before us. E F G -\ 5. The academic qualification prescribed for admission to three year~ LL.B professional course (vide Handbook of lnformation)is as follows: "Candidates who have passed bachelor's Degree of Guru H 966 [2008) ·14 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ~ ~ A B ., Nanak Dev University or any other equivalent examination recognized as such by the University with not less than · 45% marks; or Master's Degree of Guru Nanak Dev University or of any other University recognized as equivalent thereto." 6. The appellant-University submitted that a Bachelor's degree is a must for admission, and the Master's degree of the appellant University (or the equivaler)t) was considered as an eligible qualification for admission, only where the candidate had not s.ecured 45% marks in the Bachelor's degree course. '")-- c 7. This argument of the appellant-University is contested by the first respondent, who appeared in person. According to him, the provision relating to eligibility used the word "or" between the two qualifications pr~scribed; and that indicated that D[they were ualternatives and possessing either ][of ][them would ] make a candidate eligible. He submitted tl)atas he possessed . M.A: (English) degree from the Annamalai University, through Distance Education, under the Open University System (OUS), he fulfilled the alternative requirement prescribed, that is, a master's degree recognized as equivalent to the master's deE gree _of_ the appellant-University and, therefore, he is eligible to get admission to three years LL.B professional course. . 8. The .prescription of eligibinty criteria is very clear. It requires a Bachelor's degree with not less than 45 m·arks _or_ a F Master's degree. The university's co_ntention that the candidate rnust have a'Ba-chelor's degr~e and orift if his marks are less than 45% in the Bachelor's. degree course, the Master's de-. gree was to be considered, would mean that the word 'or' should be substituted by the words 'in the event of the candidate not G[having 45 marks ][in ][Bachelor's degree'. Reading such words ] into the provision is ·impermissible. The word 'or' is disjunctive. No doubt; in some exceptional circumstances, the word 'or' has been read as conjunctive as meaning 'and', where the context warranted it. But the word 'or' cannot obviously-be read as referring to a co.nditional alternative, when such condition is n.ot H ........ _}_ • ,. 967 GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY _v._ SANJAY KUMAR KATWAL &ANR. [K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI] .... _-.(/_ specified. In view ofthe provision relating to eligibility being A unambiguous and using the word 'or', it is clear that a Master's degree without a Bachelor's degree will satisfy the eligibility requirement. 9. The next contention of the university is that a person without having a Bachelor's degree cannot have Master's degree. They contend that even according to the criteria prescribed by Annamalai University for admission to MA, only persons who have BA or equivalent degree, are eligible for admission. They rely on the following eligibility criterion prescribed by Annamalai University for admission to MA degree course: B c "Candidates who have passed the B.A. or B.Sc. Or BOL or an examination of any other university, accepted by the Syndicate as equivalent thereto, with English under Part 1/11/111, are eligible to join MA Degree course in English. D Preference will be given to those who have studied English under Part Ill." ..; ..... -:. :; 10. The Appellant University therefore contended that as the first respondent did not possess a Bachelor's degree, the Master's degree secured by him is irregular. On the other hand, E first respondent pointed out that the above eligibility criteria prescribed by Annamalai University was for admission to regular M.A. degree course or M.A. Correspondence Course; and that the eligibility criteria for admission to Master's degree programme under the Open University System ('OUS'), in the . F Annamalai University - distance education, was as follows : "Those who have completed the age of 21 as on 1st July of the year of admission and have subsequently passed the preparatory course examination are eligible for admission." G 11. It is thus clear that under the OUS scheme, if a candidate had passed the preparatory course examination for admission to f\{lA (English) literature, he need not have a basic Bachelor's degree. It is true that normally a student cannot en- H 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R1. A roll for a Master's degree course unless he has a basic Bachelor's degree in the chosen subject. But some uriiversi• ties may provide for enrolment to a Master's degree course without a basic Bachelor's degree course, if certain requirements are fulfilled. Annamalai University has in fact made such B a provision for enrolment to M.A. course by distance education (OUS). 12. The last contention of the appellant university is that the MA (OUS) qualification possessed by the first respondent is not recognized as equivalent to the Master's degree of apc pellant university. The appellant university has issued an equiva!ency book containing the list of examinations of other universities recognized by the appellant university. Clause (5) of the said equivalency book reads thus : "That correspondence courses conducted by other Universities/Boards/Bodies be recognized as equivalent to the corresponding (regular) examinations of this University provided that regular examinations of those Universities/Boards/ Bodies already stand recognized as equivalent to .the cor_responding examinations of this University (Academic Council, dated 16.1.1990)." D , E The said equivalency book also shows that MA examination of Annamalai University is recognized as equivalent to MA examination of appellant university. But tha·t may not be sufficient. The appellant university in its additional affidavit has claritied that there are three types of courses, as under: F ")-- .,, ..... _f ._ ... ... - ' (i) Regular Courses; G H - (ii) Correspondence Courses: (where the Universitydirectly sends the course material to the students. There is therefore direct contact of the university with the students). - (iii) Distance Education Courses: (where the University concerned designates a franchisee/associate institutions in the concerned local area and the course _r_ 969 GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY _v._ SANJAY KUMAR KATWAL & ANR. [K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI] • _... r_ ... ... .\ ,, material is then given by the said franchisee/ A associate centre. There is no direct contact between students and the University). -~ 13. The appellant university has categorically stated that while regular courses and correspondence courses in MA conducted by Annamalai university are recognized as equivalent[B ] ·to the corresponding M.A. course of the appellant university, M.A. (OUS) course through distance education conducted by Annamalai university is not recognized by the appellant university as equivalent to its M.A. course. The first respondent has passed his M.A. (OUS) from Annamalai University through dis'- c tance education. Equivalence is a t~chnica1 academic matte~. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence1 should be by a specific order or ·resolution, duly published. The first respon" dent has not been able to produce any document to show that 0 appellant university has recognized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to M.A. of appellant university. Thus it has to be held that first, respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for admission to three year law course. E E 14. The first respondent made a faint attempt to contend that the distance education system includes 'correspondence courses' and therefore recognition of M.A. (correspondence ·course) as equivalent to M.A. course of appellant University, would amount to recognition of M.A. - OUS (distance educaF . tion) course, as an equivalent. For this purpose, b.e relied upon the definition of "distance education system" in section 2(e) of Indira Gandhi National Op·en University Act, 1985. But there is nothing to show that Annamalai University has treated correspondence course and O_US (distance education) course as G the same. What is more important is that the appellant university does not wish to treat correspondence cours·e 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. H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. 970 15. Therefore the appeal of the University deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court holding that M.A. English degree (OUS) granted by Annamalai University through distance education is equivalent to MA degree of appellant university, is set aside. A B 16. However, on the peculiar facts of the case, the first respondent is entitled to relief. The first respondent was admit.ted through a Common Entrance Test process during 20042005. He was permitted to take the first semester examinations by the university. He is not guilty of any suppression or C misrepresentation of facts. Apparently, there was some confusion in the appellant university itself as to whether the distance education course attended by the first respondent was the same as correspondence course ~hich was recognized. The first respondent was informed that he was not eligible, only after he D 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 circumE stances, it will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and recognized by the appellant university. This Court in _Shri Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University,_ (AIR 1976 SC 376), has observed that before issuing the admission card to a student to F appear in Part-I Law Examination, it was the duty of the university authorities to scrutinize the papers; and equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the university to see that it complied with all requirements; and if they did not take care to scrutinize the papers, the G candidature for the examinations cannot be cancelled subsequently on the ground of non-fulfilment of requirements. In _Sana tan Gaud_ a _vs. Berhampur University_ (Al R 1990 SC 1075), this Court held where the candidate was admitted to the Law course by Law College and University also permitted him to appear for Pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations, the H ,._ \I .. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY _v._ SANJAY KUMAR KATWAL & ANR. [K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI] 971 ~ _-r'_ college and the university were estopped from withholding his A result on the ground that he was ineligible to take admission in Law course. Having regard to the above we are of the view tha~ irrespective of the fact that M.A. English (OUS) degree secured by first respondent from Annamalai University through distance education, may not be recognized as an equivalent to the B Master's degree of the appellant university, his admission to the law course should not be cancelled. The appellant Univer-, sity is directed to treat the admission as regular admission and, permit the first respondent to appear for the law examination and if he has already appeared for the examination, declare' C his result. The appeal is disRosed of accordingly. K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.,