Karthik B. and Sreeraj S. v. APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/18TH KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 32021 of 2017 (C)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **1. KARTHIK B., 3RD YEAR STUDENT, B.TECH (ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATIONS), SCMS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT HILL VIEW COLONY A-5, CHEVAYUR P.O, CALICUT-673 017.** **2. SREERAJ S., 3RD YEAR STUDENT, B.TECH (ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATIONS), SCMS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT MATTORA HOUSE, EDAVATTOM P.O, KOTTAYAM -686 605.** **BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ, KUM.A.ARUNA, KUM.THULASI K. RAJ, SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY.** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------** **1. APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34.** **2. VICE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34.** **3. REGISTRAR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34.** ## **WP(C).No. 32021 of 2017 (C)** **4. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34.** **5. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM -686 560.** **6. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM -686 560.** **7. REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM -686 560.** **8. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM -686 560.** **9. THE PRINCIPAL, SCMS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **R1 TO R4 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC. R5 TO R8 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC. R9 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-11-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO.28677 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## rs. **WP(C).No. 32021 of 2017 (C)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.9.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 2015.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MG UNIVERSITY REGULATION** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ----------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) Nos.32021, 32071, 32116, 33885, and 28677 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of November, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** Captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of an issue, to continue and complete the B.Tech Course under the M.G.University and the Calicut University respectively and the respondents are bound to make arrangements as per the curriculum of the M.G. University as well as the Calicut University. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass a common judgment. 2. Petitioners in the first three captioned writ petitions are students of SCMS College of Engineering and Technology, Karukutty, Ernakulam District. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.33885/2017 are students of Government Engineering College, Painavu, Idukki District. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28677/2017 are students of Malabar College of Engineering, Cheruthuruty, Thrissur District under the University of Calicut. Since the subject matter of the issue W.P.(C) Nos. 32021, 32071, 32116,33885, and 28677 of 2017 2 raised in the writ petitions are common in nature and the issue is covered by a Division Bench of this court, I will briefly state the facts in W.P.(C) No.32021/2017. The decision of which will decide the fate of the other writ petitions also. 3. Petitioners are students of B.Tech (Electronics & Communications) in SCMS College of Engineering, Karukutty, Ernakulam. They were admitted to the said course in the year 2015-2016. They were not allowed to write the 6[th] semester examination and they were denied promotion to the 7[th] semester alleging that, they do not have the required percentage of attendance. As per the M.G. University curriculum, when there is attendance shortage, the students will have to repeat the semester. However, due to the transition of affiliation of college from M.G. University to APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, at present only final year classes are conducted by the M.G. University. As a result petitioners are not allowed to continue their course as per the M.G. University curriculum, W.P.(C) Nos. 32021, 32071, 32116,33885, and 28677 of 2017 3 which according to the petitioners, are unjust, illegal and arbitrary. It is also contended that, as per sections 60 & 72 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, respondents are bound to make arrangements facilitating the petitioners to complete their course as per the M.G. University curriculum. The difference of facts in other writ petitions is in respect of the semesters to be undergone by the petitioners. The issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court in **Nanditha.T.K. v. APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and others** reported in 2017(4) KHC 539 = 2017(3) KLT 1089 and held in paragraphs 12 to 17 as follows: 12.We would like to notice the last part of the said provision as well. It mentions about award of degree diploma etc. by such University,meaning, the old University, which should be the natural consequence because, they were pursuing the course under the old University. Now, we may refer to Section 72 of the Act, 2015. Section 72 of the Act, 2015 is contained in Chapter X and talks of transitional provisions. The first thing we may note is Section 60 of the Act, 2015 also provided W.P.(C) Nos. 32021, 32071, 32116,33885, and 28677 of 2017 4 for transitional provision. But, for reasons known to the draftsman, instead of that provision being in this Chapter, it was made a part of Section 60 of the Act, 2015 as well. Section 72(1) of the Act, 2015 then makes it clear that the students already enrolled under the old University would continue as specified in Section 60 of the Act, 2015 and shall study the old courses. This makes it clear and reproduces the provisions of Section 60 of the Act, 2015. But the difference arises in the last part of sub section (1). As noticed earlier, the last part of Section 60(1) of the Act, 2015 talks of award of degree by the old University. Last part of Section 72(1) of the Act, 2015, on the other hand, talks of award of degree etc. of the University established under this Act, meaning the APJ University. 13.We would attempt to reconcile the two. The logical would be to read down the provisions of Section 72(1) of the Act, 2015 by reading the expression 'University' established under this Act, to mean 'University' not established under this Act, or, in other words, the original or old University, to bring it consistent with Section 60 (1) of the Act, 2015. In the rest of the provision, there is no ambiguity or conflict. 14.Sub Section (2) of Section 72 of the Act, 2015 then creates an obligation on the new University, i.e., APJ University, to facilitate to W.P.(C) Nos. 32021, 32071, 32116,33885, and 28677 of 2017 5 make all arrangements of holding examinations for such students in accordance with the curriculum etc., of the old University until the student completes the said course of study. Thus, from beginning to end, the students do not have to change their courses or the scheme but are to continue under the same curriculum up to the day he or she passes out. Thus, if we read Section 60 (1), 72(1) and 72(2) of the Act, 2015, the scheme and the legislative intent is clear. The students who were earlier in different Universities would be undisturbed. They would continue with the curriculum rules and regulations of courses according to and as prescribed by the old University and it shall be the responsibility of the Technological University to which their institutions got affiliated to ensure this process. This being our finding about the scope and the nature of the scheme envisaged by the Act, 2015, let us see what has happened. 15.From the submissions as made by the learned standing counsel for the APJ University, it seems what they have done is just the opposite. What we perceive is that the authorities of the APJ University failed to notice these provisions at all. To them, it was that as the institution had now got affiliated to their University, everything applied to the institution as per the Technological Universities rules, regulations and curriculum W.P.(C) Nos. 32021, 32071, 32116,33885, and 28677 of 2017 6 and it is not their responsibility to allow students to carry on courses as earlier prescribed by their original Universities. The students had to migrate to the new courses. They had to comply with the rules and regulations for the new courses and curriculum as prescribed by the Technological University. 16.For example, in case of the appellant/petitioner, they state that as she had not scored 39 credits in the first two semesters, she cannot be allowed to join the III semester. As she had failed in one paper in the II semester, she would have to clear that paper. This was not the requirement or the system in the University of Kerala. There were no concept of credits and, as is not in dispute, even though she failed in one paper in II semester, she was liable to be and she was in fact promoted to the III semester which she was attending, but dropped midway because of illness. This shows that the authorities of the APJ University totally were under the misappreciation of law. They misunderstood and misapplied the provisions. We wonder how many other students must have been subjected to such unauthorized changes. Students who took admissions in the institutions, when the institution was affiliated to the University of Kerala, would continue to be students of University of Kerala and would graduate as such. W.P.(C) Nos. 32021, 32071, 32116,33885, and 28677 of 2017 7 That is, what is contemplated in Section 60 of the Act, 2015 and that is contemplated in Section 72 (1) of the Act, 2015 and the obligation to ensure that by virtue of Section 72(2)of the Act, 2015 is upon the Technological University to which the institutions have migrated. To illustrate, the first batch of admissions to the course of B.Arch. in the Technological University would be from 20162017. Therefore, the students who took admission in the College of Architecture, Thiruvananthapuram for B.Arch. course from the session 2016-2017 would be governed by and would be treated as students of the Technological University. But, so far as the W.A. 1730/2017 14 students of earlier batches are concerned, i.e., 2015-2016 and prior batches including the appellant, they would continue with course, curriculum, rules and regulations of the University of Kerala till they complete their courses of studies, meaning, the full five year course. They cannot be and they are statutorily not required to seek re-admission or change course midway from University of Kerala to the APJ University. They would get their degree certificates, diplomas, as the case may be, of University of Kerala. If the APJ University has done otherwise, that would be wrong and a correction is due. 17.In view of the above, what they have done with W.P.(C) Nos. 32021, 32071, 32116,33885, and 28677 of 2017 8 the appellant is indeed wrong and cannot be sustained upon the plain reading of the statutes, as referred to above. She cannot be treated as a student readmitted to the course. She would be treated as a student continuing the course with a break. Even if for any technical reason she is to be treated as a re-admission, it would be readmission to a continuing course and the continuing course would be nothing else but the B.Arch. course of University of Kerala governed by the rules and regulations of the University of Kerala. The credit system and other rules of the APJ University would not apply. Hence, even if she was to take re-admission, the re-admission would be to the III semester with a chance to clear the semester II paper in supplementary examination, as were conducted by the University of Kerala. We would like to further clarify one lurking doubt amongst the two lawyers representing the two Universities i.e., with regard to the responsibility. We have no doubt in this regard if Sections 60(1) and Section 72(2) of the Act,2015 are read together. The legislative intent is clear and unambiguous. They are to continue with their courses as prescribed by the old University and the new University i.e., APJ University, would be a facilitator in this regard. But the examinations would be conducted by the University of Kerala. Of course, by mutual W.P.(C) Nos. 32021, 32071, 32116,33885, and 28677 of 2017 9 agreement University of Kerala may transfer this responsibility to the APJ University. Whatever may be the situation, we have settled the legal position. Whatever position, the two Universities may take, the interest of the student for uninterrupted studies without change of track is paramount and that has to be kept in mind by all. Wherever contrary decisions were taken or in cases where students have been subject to procedures not sanctified by law as explained by us, the process has to be revered and set right. Thus, in view of our findings as above, we are unable to uphold the judgment of the learned single Judge and the same is hereby set aside. The APJ University is directed not to treat the readmission of the appellant to the course of B.Arch. under the APJ University but to treat her to be a student of B.Arch. course of the University of Kerala and which she shall continue as such. Her readmission would be in III semester and not in II semester. She would have the right to clear the backlog papers which are to be conducted by the University of Kerala as supplementary examination as was usually otherwise done. With these directions and observations, this appeal stands allowed.” 4. In my considered opinion, the issue raised in these writ petitions are also squarely covered as per the W.P.(C) Nos. 32021, 32071, 32116,33885, and 28677 of 2017 10 proposition of law laid down in the aforequoted judgment. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the said judgment. It is also brought to the notice of the respective Universities that, the judgment in **Nanditha. T.K.** is followed by the very same Division Bench in **Nandu Narayan.S. v. University of Kerala and others** in Writ Appeal No.1755/2017 dated 23.8.2017 and the said judgment shall also be taken note of. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respective Universities to comply with the directions contained in the judgments in **Nanditha. T.K.** (supra) and take necessary consequential actions accordingly. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** smv 10.11.2017