Jobi S.L. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** **WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/12TH BHADRA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 16737 of 2012 (N)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -----------------------** **JOBI. S.L., MESSIAH NIVAS, PERINGAMMALA, KALLIYOOR. P.O - 695 042, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** ## **1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** **2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM- 686 560.** ## **3. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** ## **4. PRINCIPAL,** **AMAL JYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686 507.** **R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC., SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SC. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL. R4 BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2014, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.21809 OF 2012, THE COURT ON 03/09/2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **WP(C).No. 16737 of 2012 (N)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** |**EXT.P1**|**COPY OF THE MARKLIST OF THE PETITIONER.**| |---|---| |**EXT.P2**|**COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE.**| |**EXT.P3**|**COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REGULATION.**| |**EXT.P4**|**COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT.**| |**EXT.P5**|**COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 06/09/2010.**| |**EXT.P6**|**COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO**| ||**P.G. COURSE IN ENGINEERING.**| |**EXT.P7**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19/04/2011.**| |**EXT.P8**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03/05/2012.**| |**EXT.P9**|**COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17/05/2011.**| |**EXT.P10**|**COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/05/2011 IN WP(C).NO.13746/2011.**| |**EXT.P11**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/02/2012 IN**| ||**WP(C).NO.13746/2011.**| |**EXT.P12**|**COPY OF THE CHELAN RECEIPT .**| |**EXT.P13**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/03/2012 IN**| ||**WP(C).NO. 8040/2012.**| |**EXT.P14**|**COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01/05/2012.**| |**EXT.P15**|**COPY OF THE CHELAN RECEIPT DATED 14/06/2012.**| **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** **A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J. -------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos. 16737 & 21809 of 2012 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of September, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** These two writ petitions relate to an admission secured by the petitioner to M.Tech - Machine Design in Amal Jyothi College of Engineering under the 1[st] respondent University. 2. The petitioner was admitted to M.Tech course in Machine Design in the aforesaid college. However, his admission was cancelled by the respondent University on the ground that he had not got the minimum marks of 60% in aggregate in the qualifying degree examination (B.Tech). The University took the stand that the eligibility criteria for admission to M.Tech course for the academic year 2010-2011 is the minimum of 60% aggregate in B.Tech examination. The petitioner scored only 59.52% in aggregate. In WP(C) No.16737/2012, the petitioner has sought permission to appear for the third semester W.P.(C) Nos. 16737 & 21809 of 2012 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** examination, which was scheduled to be held on 18.07.2012 or 19.07.2012. In WP(C) No.21809/2012, the petitioner is seeking permission to appear for all the future examinations including the 4[th] semester exam and supplementary examinations and a direction to announce the results of all the previous examinations in M.Tech - Machine Design Course appeared by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner had filed WP(C) No.13746/2011, in which, this Court, by interim order dated 23.05.2011, had directed the University to permit him to appear for the first semester examination and also directed the University not to publish the results of the examination for the time being. Ultimately, by judgment dated 22.02.2012, this Court directed the University to permit the petitioner to appear for the 2[nd] semester examination provisionally and also directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within a time limited to two months. Accordingly, the respondent University examined the matter and decided not to recognize the admission given to the petitioner by W.P.(C) Nos. 16737 & 21809 of 2012 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the college authorities on the ground that it violated the rules for admission. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the second writ petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, they maintain the stand that the University has the right to rescind the admission of candidates, who do not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed for various admissions. In support of their claim, they rely on a decision of the apex court in **Mahatma Gandhi University** v. **Gis Jose and Others** (S.L.P. No.3560/2007). It is also pointed out that the apex court has deprecated the practice of permitting students to pursue their studies and to appear in the exam on the strength of interim orders. According to the respondent University, the eligibility criteria for M.Tech admission with effect from 2010 is 60% and as the petitioner has scored only a lesser percentage, his admission cannot be regularized. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the W.P.(C) Nos. 16737 & 21809 of 2012 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University quite in extenso. 6. Now, as per Exts.P17 and P18 in WP(C) No.21809/2012, the petitioner's admission to M.Tech - Machine Design stands cancelled. The reason stated is that he has got only 59.52% marks in aggregate in the qualifying examination (B.Tech), whereas the minimum required is 60%. It is evident from Ext.P4 in WP(C) No.21809/2012 that the petitioner has secured admission to the M.Tech course in Amal Jyothi College of Engineering on 29.07.2010. Ext.P4 is the copy of receipts issued by the college relating to admission fee and other fees. The respondent University is relying on Ext.P5 dated 06.09.2010, by which the aforesaid eligibility criteria was introduced for M.Tech admission during the year 2010. It is true that as per Ext.P5, the minimum eligible marks prescribed for securing admission to M.Tech course in colleges under the respondent University, has been fixed as 60% in aggregate in the W.P.(C) Nos. 16737 & 21809 of 2012 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Engineering Degree Examination. In Ext.P8 communication dated 03.05.2011 issued by the Principal of the Amal Jyothi College of Engineering to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University, it is stated that their admission procedure was completed before the publication of Ext.P5 notification; and therefore, the ruling of the University denying the admission of the petitioner and the other students will not stand. At the time of admission, the college was following the “Regulations for admission to M.Tech Programme (2007 admission onwards)”, in which the minimum eligibility criteria for admission was Bachelor's degree in appropriate branch of engineering with minimum 55% aggregate or equivalent. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner is having 59.52% aggregate marks in the B.Tech examination. The institution, which was keen enough in admitting students to the post graduate course in time, completed the admission in accordance with the existing norms laid down by the respondent University. However, the respondent University, which is always W.P.(C) Nos. 16737 & 21809 of 2012 ..6.. moving on a slow track, has chosen to issue Ext.P5 only on 06.09.2010 fixing a time schedule and introducing a higher percentage of aggregate marks for securing admission. The respondent University cannot take advantage on their own laches and pull down the admission secured by the petitioner in accordance with the norms existing on the date of admission. Evidently, Ext.P5 changed norms dated 06.09.2010 do not govern the petitioner. As per Ext.P18, the decision of the University to deny regularization of admission is essentially on the basis of Ext.P5. The said stand is incorrect and untenable. 7. Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the University (Annamalai University), which awarded the degree to the petitioner, has excluded the marks secured by the candidate in the first two semesters for calculating the aggregate, the respondent University cannot fix a different criteria. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question regarding the percentage has to be decided by W.P.(C) Nos. 16737 & 21809 of 2012 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the University, which granted the degree. This Court cannot accept the said argument as it is for the University, under whom the student seeks admission, to decide the eligibility criteria. 8. Here, the eligibility criteria as on the date of admission of the petitioner was 55% in aggregate, which the petitioner had scored even according to the method of calculation followed by the respondent University. As Ext.P5 notification will not apply to the admission of the petitioner, which is much prior to the date of Ext.P5, this Court is of the definite view that the denial of request for regularization is illegal. 9. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had scored 59.52% aggregate, the same has to be rounded off to the nearest whole number, 60. However, it was argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University that no rounding off is permitted in case of admission and it is permissible only in case of examinations. However, it is equitable to extend the principle of rounding off to this W.P.(C) Nos. 16737 & 21809 of 2012 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** case as the complications arose on account of the delay in issuing Ext.P5, containing new norms. The petitioner under the legitimate expectation that his admission would be regularized by the University, joined the course and remitted the requisite fee long before the issuance of Ext.P5. The principle of deprecating the practice of permitting students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examinations on the strength of interim orders in petitions, cannot be extended to this case. The petitioner was entitled to get the interim order as prayed for since his admission was regular as per the then existing norms. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire materials now placed on board, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. In the result, WP(C) No.21809/2012 is allowed. Exts.P17 and P18 are quashed. It is hereby declared that the petitioner is not governed by Exts.P5, P6 and P7 and his admission is legal and valid in view of Ext.P3 regulations. The respondent University is directed to regularize W.P.(C) Nos. 16737 & 21809 of 2012 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the admission of the petitioner to M.Tech - Machine Design in the Amal Jyothi College of Engineering and to declare the results of all the papers, in which he has appeared on the basis of the judgment/interim orders issued by this Court. The petitioner shall be permitted to appear for all the future examinations including the 4[th] semester examination and supplementary examinations related to M.Tech Course in Machine Design. The respondent University shall announce the results of all the previous examinations in M.Tech Design Course attended by the petitioner. WP(C) No.16737/2012 is closed as no further relief is required in that writ petition. Sd/- **A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE** bka/-