## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
## **`THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI`**
## **`&`**
## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN`**
```
MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945
```
## **`WA NO. 1671 OF 2022`**
```
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22262/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
```
## **`KERALA`**
## **`APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:`**
- **`1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 560.`**
- **`2 VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 560.`**
- **`3 THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS PO, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.`**
- **`4 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (ACADEMIC), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS PO, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.`**
```
BY ADV SHRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
```
## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 5[TH] RESPONDENT:`**
- **`1 JASMINE JOSE, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. JOSE SAMUEAL, SEENAI VILLA', VAZHAMUTTAM P.O., OMALLOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 647.`**
**2**
## **W.A.No.1671 of 2022**
```
2 THE PRINCIPAL, CATHOLICATE COLLEGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.
```
```
BY ADVS.
D.KISHORE
MEERA GOPINATH
```
```
R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL
```
```
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
**W.A.No.1671 of 2022**
**3**
## **JUDGMENT**
Dated this the 14[th] day of August 2023
## **A.J. Desai, C.J**
By way of the present appeal filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, appellant No.1, Mahatma Gandhi University and its office bearers have challenged the judgment dated 29.09.2022 in W.P.(C)No.22262 of 2022, by which the learned single Judge accepted the petition filed by the 1[st] respondent, quashing and setting aside Exhibits P9 and P10, by which the appellant sought an explanation from the present respondent No.5 college with regard to admitting the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner in Post Graduation course i.e. M.A. English for the academic year 2021-2023 as well as the order by which the admission granted to the 1[st] respondent to the aforesaid course came to be cancelled. Hence this appeal.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the 1[st] respondent, who intended to pursue her further studies in Post Graduation with the appellant University i.e. M.A.
**W.A.No.1671 of 2022**
**4**
in English, applied for the same through the website of the University, by filling up the required form and that too, after getting eligibility certificate dated 27.11.2021 issued by the University.
3. The application submitted by the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner was accepted by the University and the petitioner was admitted to the 5[th] respondent college i.e. Catholicate College, Pathanamthitta. Thereafter the 1[st] respondent started her classes for Post Graduation. Meanwhile, the Vice Chancellor ordered to cancel the admission given to the 1[st] respondent. Accordingly, the admission was cancelled and by communication dated 07.05.2022, an explanation was sought from the college regarding the academic details submitted by the 1[st] respondent. The same was responded to by the college by Exhibit R1(a) communication dated 23.05.2022. However, the University, by communication dated 08.06.2022, informed the 1[st] respondent that her admission had been cancelled and the decision cannot be reviewed. Hence, the same was challenged before this court.
4. In response to the notice issued by the learned single
**W.A.No.1671 of 2022**
**5**
Judge, the University filed a counter affidavit as well as a statement and tried to explain the reasons for cancelling the admission granted to the 1[st] respondent.
5. The learned single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the writ petition and permitted the petitioner to continue her studies, by observing that it would be open for the appellant University to take appropriate action against the college that had admitted the petitioner to the Post Graduation course. It appears that at the time of admission of this appeal, by an order dated 14.11.2022, this court had permitted the 1[st] respondent to continue her studies in the Post Graduation course.
6. When the matter was called out today, the learned Advocate appearing for the 1[st] respondent submitted that the two-year Post Graduation course had been completed and she has also taken the examination of M.A. Part II.
7. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the reason for cancelling the admission is the failure of the college to verify whether the marks of all major
**W.A.No.1671 of 2022**
**6**
requirement papers of English in Graduation had been provided by the 1[st] respondent along with her application. The admission was given only relying upon the marks which the 1[st] respondent
had obtained upon her Graduation from the University of Bahrain. If the marks of all major and elective subjects were calculated by the college, the 1[st] respondent would not have been entitled for admission to the Post Graduation course. He would further submit that the 1[st] respondent as well as the respondent college had committed a grave error in calculating index marks and, therefore, the University was right in cancelling the admission. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal be allowed.
8. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner would submit that it is not the case of either University or the College that the 1[st] respondent had suppressed any material fact while filling the application. He would submit that all the details, showing the marks of each subject, were submitted along with the application filed by the 1[st] respondent. Moreover, the qualifying certificates were verified by the University and thereafter Exhibit P6 eligibility
**W.A.No.1671 of 2022**
**7**
certificate was issued to the 1[st] respondent. The college had also scrutinised the application as well as the documents attached to the application and, therefore, it cannot be said that the 1[st] respondent had tried to mislead either the University or the college. He would submit that as per the affidavit filed before this court, the minimum Cumulative Grade Points Average (CGPA) is 1.8 out of 4, whereas the 1[st] respondent is having 2.6 as CGPA and, therefore, the college had rightly given admission to the 1[st] respondent.
8.1. He would further submit that clause 9 of the Prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Degree in M.G. University issued by the University in the year 2022 deals with the calculation of index marks. For Post Graduation course M.A. English, the index mark is to be calculated on the basis of the percentage of marks secured for Part III Core course/Main or Part I common course/papers whichever is higher. Accordingly, the college had calculated the marks obtained by the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner in the requisite papers and, therefore, the University cannot now go beyond the prospectus published
**W.A.No.1671 of 2022**
**8**
## on the website.
8.2. He would submit that as the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner is not at fault and has completed the course and appeared for the last examination, she cannot be denied the benefits of the course undergone by her. In support of the contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra** reported in (1976) 1 SCC 311. He would submit that the appeal be dismissed.
9. We heard learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the impugned order.
10. It is an undisputed fact that the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner has completed her Graduation i.e., B.A. in English from the University of Bahrain. Since she wanted to pursue her further studies i.e., Post Graduation in English with the appellant University, she submitted an application online and produced the eligibility certificate granted by the University. Accordingly, considering the CGPA, she was admitted to respondent No.5 College. The college examined all the documents which were
**W.A.No.1671 of 2022**
**9**
produced by the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner and ultimately granted admission, finding her suitable for the same. It is an undisputed fact that as per the affidavit filed by the University itself, the minimum CGPA to get admission to M.A. English was 1.80 out of 4. The fact that the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner has a 2.6 CGPA, which satisfies the minimum requirement for getting admission declared by the University, is not in dispute. The response to the query to the University suggests that the petitioner was entitled to admission as per the marks she obtained from the University of Bahrain. Thereafter the appellant University tried to explain the calculation of index marks in paragraph 3 of its additional affidavit dated 20.09.2022. In the opinion of the University, the index marks were not properly calculated by the college. But that is not the fault of the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner, who submitted all the documents and it is neither the case of the University nor the college that there is suppression of any material facts and, therefore, the admission granted cannot be cancelled.
Apart from this fact, in the present case, the student has
**W.A.No.1671 of 2022**
**10**
completed the Post Graduation and, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. We are also not interfering with the observation made by the learned single Judge in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment. Even otherwise, we are not opining anything with regard to the statements made by the University against the college. Hence, we dismiss this appeal. Since the exams are over, the University shall declare the results of the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner along with the other students and do the needful as far as the 1[st] respondent is concerned.
Sd/-
**A.J. Desai Chief Justice**
Sd/-
**V.G. Arun Judge**
**Vpv**
//true copy//
P.A. to Judge
