Neema v. Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, Government Engineering College, Cheroor and Calicut University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 ## **W.P.(C).No.30011 of 2013 (B)** --------------------------------------------------- ## PETITIONER:- -------------------------- NEEMA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.NAJMUDEEN, CHULOOR P.O., VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SMT.P.R.REENA. ## RESPONDENTS:- -------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, CHEROOR, THRISSUR - 680 608. 3. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673 254 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- W.P.(C).No.30011 of 2013 (B) ---------------------------------------- ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- ------------------------------------- - EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF MARKS OF THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BHARATHIYAR UNIVERSITY COIMBATORE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26.11.2013. - EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT MEMO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT SLIP ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 19.11.2013. - EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT REPORTED IN 2005 KHC 113. - EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 7.5.2005 ISSUED BY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. - EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1999 KHC 252. EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2011(3) KHC PAGE 65. - EXT.P-10: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF UNIVERSITIES APPROVAL BY THE DISTANT EDUCATION COUNCIL. - EXT.P-11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF DISTANT EDUCATION COUNCIL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- - --------------------------------------- NIL. vku/- ( true copy ) ## K. Vinod Chandran, J ----------------------------------W.P(C) No.30011 of 2013-B ----------------------------------Dated this the 06[th] day of December, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the refusal of the 2[nd] respondent to admit the petitioner to the Master of Computer Application (for short “MCA”) course conducted by the 2[nd] respondent, which is a Government College affiliated to the 3[rd] respondent-University. 2. I have heard Sri.Ranjith Thampan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Noushad Thottathil, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University. 3. The short facts are that the petitioner holds a Bachelors Degree in Computer Application in Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore under the Distance Education Programme of the said University. On the strength of the said graduate degree, the petitioner enrolled for the Entrance Examination conducted by the 1[st] respondent, the **- 2 -** WP(C).No.30011 of 2013-B Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, for selection to the MCA course. The petitioner was ranked 169 and was allotted to the MCA course of the 2[nd] respondent-College. Since the petitioner's graduate degree was obtained under a Distance Education Programme, the petitioner was directed to produce an equivalency certificate. The petitioner claims that she had approached the University of Calicut and was informed that the regular courses conducted by the Bharathiyar University alone were recognized by the 3[rd] respondent-University. In such circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court claiming admission to the MCA course on the strength of the graduate degree obtained by her, on a contention that there can be no discrimination with respect to a degree obtained under the Distance Education Programme and a regular course. 4. The petitioner would rely on two judgments of this Court as also the notification issued by the Distance Education Council. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that consistently this Court has in _**Mujeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala**_ **[2005 (1) KLT 680]** and _**State of Kerala & Others v. Thulasibai and Others**_ **[2011 (3) KLT 181]** **- 3 -** WP(C).No.30011 of 2013-B held that the degree obtained through a regular course of study and through Distance Education Programme cannot be distinguished for purposes of recruitment to public service. 5. It is to be noticed that the said judgments were rendered with respect to recruitment to Kerala Higher Secondary Education State Service and the other in relation to a promotion in the Chemical Examiners' Laboratory Department, wherein Kerala Service Rules were applicable. In _**Mujeeb Rahman**_ ( _supra_ ), the Special Rules for Kerala Higher Secondary Education State Service, 2001, more specifically Rule 5, was noticed and it was found that the rule only stipulates a post-graduate M.A. Degree, recognized as equivalent by any of the Universities in the State of Kerala. It was in the circumstance of the petitioner therein having obtained Master's Degree through correspondence course, which degree has been recognized by the Universities in the State of Kerala, that his claim was allowed. In _**Thulasibai**_ ( _supra_ ) again the claim of persons who had post-graduate degree under the Distance Education Programme was allowed, since the Special Rules did not make any distinction between degree obtained pursuing a regular course or **- 4 -** WP(C).No.30011 of 2013-B under the Distance Education Programme. _**State of Kerala & Others v. Joseph**_ **[1999 (2) KLJ 190],** produced as Exhibit P8, is not applicable in the instant case. 6. Exhibit P10 is the list of Universities approved by the Distance Education Council, wherein Bharathiyar University figures. But, Exhibit P11 again is concerned with recognition of Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates for employment in Government services. This Court is of the opinion that the precedents produced along with the writ petition are with respect to the distinction drawn on a degree obtained under the Distance Education Programme and after pursuing a regular course; when such distinction was not permissible under the rules of recruitment. In the present case, the petitioner seeks admission to a post-graduate course under the 3[rd] respondent-University and the decisions placed on record are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, especially since the rules of the University draws a definite distinction in deciding eligibility for admission to higher education. 7. _**Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal**_ **[(2009) 1 SCC 610]** was a case which arose from WP(C).No.30011 of 2013-B **- 5 -** identical facts. A person who had obtained a post-graduate degree through Distance Education Programme of the Annamalai University under the Open University System (for brevity “OUS”) was admitted to the LL.B. course carried on by the appellant-University and also permitted to take the 1[st] Semester examinations. Later on the University found the candidate to be not entitled to be admitted or continued in the course. On the petitioner moving the High Court, it was held that the M.A. Degree granted by the Annamalai University under the OUS through the Distance Education Programme was equivalent to M.A. Degree of appellant-University. Reversing the said finding of the High Court, it was held so in paragraphs 14 and 15: “14. The appellant University has categorically stated that while regular courses and correspondence courses in MA conducted by Annamalai University are recognised as equivalent to the corresponding MA course of the appellant University. MA (OUS) course through distance education conducted by Annamalai University is not recognised by the appellant University as equivalent to its MA course. 15. The first respondent has passed his MA (OUS) from Annamalai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the **- 6 -** WP(C).No.30011 of 2013-B academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that the appellant University has recognised MA (English) (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to MA of appellant University. Thus, it has to be held that the first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant University for admission to the three year law course”. 8. On facts, the student, who was the respondent in the said case, was found to have not misrepresented or suppressed any material facts. The candidate was found to be admitted and continued with the University due to the University itself being not sure of the equivalence or otherwise. The University had also permitted the candidate to appear for the 1[st] Semester examination and only thereafter he was informed by the University about his ineligibility. He was continued in the course and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the issue after 4 years, when he had completed the course itself. In such circumstance, the admission of the respondent therein was directed to be regularized. However, it is to be noticed that the **- 7 -** WP(C).No.30011 of 2013-B appeal of the University was allowed on the aforesaid findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are apposite and squarely applicable in the present case. 9. Admittedly the petitioner herein was told at the time of admission itself that she is not entitled to be admitted to the MCA course by reason of her graduate study being under the Distance Education Programme. As has been noticed in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, matter of equivalence is a technical academic matter and cannot be merely implied or assumed. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner is seeking admission to a higher post-graduate degree, the facilities for education in which, is not available in abundance. The University is entitled to prescribe the courses of study which alone would be considered as an eligible qualification for admittance to the higher post-graduate studies. Such prescriptions are made by the University necessarily for reason of the syllabi of a graduate course not being identical to that of the graduate course conducted by the University itself. In technical and professional degrees, the significance of practicals cannot be discounted and the lack of facilities in a Distance Education Programme for WP(C).No.30011 of 2013-B **- 8 -** exposing a candidate to regular practical classes also is a relevant consideration. It is also pertinent that the petitioner has not applied for a certificate of equivalence to the respondent-University. This Court is also not inclined to grant a provisional registration subject to such application and consideration by the University, since there could be eligible candidates waiting to be admitted to the said course. An eventual decision by the University negativing the contention of the petitioner would lead to her expulsion from the course and would result in an eligible candidate being declined the seat. Considerations of equity cannot be applied when the affected party could be anyone in the rank list, who is not before this Court. In the circumstances detailed above, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed, _in_ _limine_ . Sd/- K. Vinod Chandran, Judge vku/- ( true copy