Lekshmi S. Kumar, Fousi S., and Akhil Babu v. University of Kerala and Institute of Management in Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/1ST ASWINA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 13164 of 2014 (U)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------** **1. LEKSHMI.S.KUMAR, 4TH SEMESTER MBA STUDENT, IMK, ALAPPUZHA.** **2. FOUSI.S., 4TH SEMESTER MBA STUDENT, IMK, ALAPPUZHA.** **3. AKHIL BABU, 4TH SEMESTER MBA STUDENT, IMK, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (CALICUT) SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SMT.APARNA C. MENON** **RESPONDENT(S) :-** - **-----------------** **1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR OF UNIVERSITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN KERALA, ALAPPUZHA CENTRE, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, ALAPPUZHA - 688 525.** **R1 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **jvt** **WP(C).No. 13164 of 2014 (U) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :-** **----------------------------** **EXT.P1 :- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 07.07.2011.** **EXT.P2 :- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PRESCRIBING ELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION TO MBA (CSS)2011.** **EXT.P3 :- COPY OF THE HALL TICKET. EXT.P3(a) :- COPY OF THE HALL TICKET. EXT.P3(b) :- COPY OF THE HALL TICKET.** **EXT.P4 :- COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR DATED 01.07.2013.** **EXT.P5 :- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.** **EXT.P5(a) :- COPY OF THE COMMUNCATION DATED 31.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.** **EXT.P5(b) :- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.** **EXT.P6 :- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT RECOMMENDATION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE SYNDICATE.** **EXT.P7 :- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE.** **EXT.P8 :- COPY OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF TUITION FEE AND EXAM FEE.** **EXT.P9 :- COPY OF THE MARK LIST ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER FOR 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD SEMESTERS.** **EXT.P10 :- COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF CANARA BANK.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :-** **----------------------------** **EXT.R1(a) :- COPY OF THE REGULATIONS FOR POST-GRADUATE PROGRAMMES IN THE TEACHING DEPARTMENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.13164 of 2014 ------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of September 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners are all 4[th] Semester MBA students of the first respondent University. The petitioners, as per Ext.P2 notification of the first respondent University, sought admission to the two year M.B.A. (Full time) Course, under the Credit and Semester System, at Institute of Management in Kerala, which has around seven centres within the State. They were admitted to the MBA (CSS) course during the academic year 2011-2013 in the 2[nd] respondent institute. The eligibility for admission as per Ext.P2 Prospectus was 50% marks in Part-III of the Graduate examination. Admittedly, the petitioners do not have the essential qualification. 2. The first petitioner and the third petitioner have only 47% marks in Part-III of the graduation. The 2[nd] petitioner obtained 41% marks in Part-III of graduation. Being fully aware W.P.(C) No.13164 of 2014 -: 2 :- that they are ineligible for admission, they appeared for the entrance examination and also secured admission to the 2[nd] respondent institution. The University at the time of admission does not scrutinise their mark sheets. The scrutiny of mark sheets comes later on. The petitioners' contention is that the Principal of the 2[nd] respondent told them that they were eligible to be admitted and hence, such admissions were made. However, it is to be noticed that the Principal, who is said to have made such assurance is not impleaded herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners rely on the judgments in **Sanatan Gauda** v. **Berhampur University and Others** [(1990) 3 SCC 23] and **Guru Nanak Dev University** v. **Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another** [(2009) 1 SCC 610]. In **Sanatan Gauda** (supra) the issue raised for consideration was whether after admitting a student and allowing to appear in examinations, at the stage of declaration of results could objections be raised on ineligibility to be admitted to the Law course. The student therein had applied on the basis of his post graduate marks and the qualifying marks prescribed for W.P.(C) No.13164 of 2014 -: 3 :- admission, as per the prospectus, was lower in the case of post graduates than that of graduates. In **Guru Nanak Dev University** (supra) the issue was whether the Bachelor's degree in an Open University System could be considered as eligible qualification for admission to the Master's Degree. The petitioner had approached the court challenging the denial of eligibility and there was also an interim order in favour of the petitioner; by virtue of which, he had continued and completed the course. By the time, the Supreme Court passed judgment in the appeal filed by the University, he had completed the course. Even though, it was found that the student was ineligible to be admitted to the course, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on facts, extended equitable consideration and allowed the petitioner to be issued with the certificate. 4. Both the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the petitioners were aware that they were ineligible and it was not a case, in which the petitioners had at the proper time approached the court of law challenging the ineligibility as declared in the W.P.(C) No.13164 of 2014 -: 4 :- prospectus. Being fully aware of the fact that they were ineligible, the petitioners secured admission and continued in the course. The continuance of the students in the course was also provisional pending scrutiny of the mark sheets. The Hall Tickets issued are seen at Ext.P3 series, wherein it was specifically stated that the candidates are “admitted provisionally”. The petitioners obviously did not challenge the provisional admission before the court of law; they willingly awaited the scrutiny. The results were also not published, since the admission was merely provisional. The petitioners took the risk of continuing in the course. Eventually they obtained permission to provisionally appear for the 4[th] Semester examination, and submitted a representation before the Syndicate. By Ext.P6 it was directed that the petitioners are not eligible for admission and cancellation was effected of the examinations provisionally appeared in. 5. The facts placed before this Court are more similar to that in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in **M.G.University** v. **Gis Jose** [2008 (4) KLT 216 (SC)]. That was W.P.(C) No.13164 of 2014 -: 5 :- a case in which a student, who did not have the minimum qualifying marks in graduation was admitted to a post-graduate course. This Hon'ble Court, on grounds of equity declared her eligible to get the post-graduate certificate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that misplaced sympathies shall not result in an ineligible candidate being granted higher degree. A Division Bench of this Court has also in **Asa.G.P.** v. **University of Kerala** (W.P.(C) No.17842 of 2005) found that the candidate who had appeared and got herself admitted at the behest of the Principal of the College, against regulations of the University and who had been continued for two years in a Post Graduate Course was ineligible to seek equity on grounds alone of completion of the course. 6. The petitioners were ineligible for admission and being fully aware of the same, they applied for the course as per Ext.P2 Prospectus, which specifically make eligible; only those candidates who secured 50% marks in Part-III of the graduation. The Principal definitely is at fault for having permitted such admission and the University could take action against him/her; W.P.(C) No.13164 of 2014 **==> picture [30 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** but that cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioners herein. The petitioners with eyes open got admission to a course when they failed to satisfy the threshold eligibility. They continued in the course, even when the University at the first instance of scrutiny of marks raised the question of ineligibility. The petitioners provisionally continued and completed the course and eventually the Syndicate held against their eligibility. No question of estoppel arises on facts. The Writ Petition, hence is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. Sd/- **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** Jvt