High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2010-08-05Writ petition disposed/closed with directions f...

Rajalakshmi Sasidharan v University of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 34895 of 2008(D)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2010-08-05
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is closed without prejudice to the petitioner's contentions. The impugned decisions will stand modified if the University decides in the petitioner’s favour. If the petitioner makes a representation to the Registrar of the University of Kerala, it should be placed before the Academic Council for pragmatic consideration within four months. The University is urged to expeditiously consider the representation.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed/closed with directions for potential reconsideration by the University if a representation is made; four-month time frame for expeditious consideration.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajalakshmi Sasidharan

Respondents

University of Kerala, represented by its Registrar, Karivattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 685 581
Institute of Management in Kerala, Senate Campus, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram-695034
Mahatma Gandhi University represented by its Registrar Priyadarsini Hills, Kottayam
School of Distance Education, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Babu Karukapadath
• Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu
• Sri. Jagan George
• Sri. K.A. Noushad
• Sri. P.G. Pramod

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. M. Rajagopalan Nair, Senior Counsel
• Sri. T.A. Shaji, Senior Counsel

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rajalakshmi Sasidharan, a candidate who completed a BBA through the Distance Education Programme of Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU) and secured a first class, was later admitted to MBA at the Institute of Management in Kerala under the University of Kerala. The University of Kerala notified that her qualifying degree (BBA) cannot be recognised for admission to MBA because it was obtained through distance education, a position reflected in Ext.R1(c) of the respondents. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief, contending that her education was bona fide and the degree should be treated as valid for further studies. The court noted that the BBA degree submitted no explicit distinction about off-campus, distance, or regular modes, and that academic prerequisites and attendance were evidently satisfied at times, yet recognized that universities are created and governed by their own statutes with academic freedom. The petitioner argued for a remedial adjustment, citing a prior judgment (Mohanan Nair) to press the point. The judge rejected that analogy, explaining that universities operate under distinct statutory frameworks and cannot be compelled to act beyond academic freedom, unless there is significant perversity or irrationality. Accordingly, the court closed the petition without prejudice, directing the University to reconsider Ext.R1(c) upon the petitioner making a proper representation. It was ordered that the University should place any representation before the Academic Council and expeditiously decide within four months, in the event the university favours her plea.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 14, Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Academic freedom of Universities
Interference in writ petitions only on grounds of wholesome perversity, irrationality or unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power under Article 14

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that her BBA degree obtained under the Distance Education Scheme is a bona fide qualification and should be treated as valid for admission to MBA. She seeks reconsideration of Ext.R1(c) by the Academic Council and relief allowing her to continue or complete her MBA without being barred by the distance-education credential. The petition argues for equitable treatment and against a rigid restriction that would unjustly deny her educational advancement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on Ext.R1(c) showing the Academic Council’s view that the distance-education BBA cannot be recognised as a qualifying degree for MBA admission in the University of Kerala. They emphasize the autonomy of universities under their statutes and argue that academic decisions may be reconsidered only through appropriate channels; they caution against a writ petition forcing recognition, underscoring the need for procedural and statutory considerations and the preservation of academic freedom.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mohanan Nair v. State of Kerala	1994 (2) KLT 537	Distinguished	Cited by the petitioner but distinguished by the court as inapplicable to the factual and legal context—government service and a government order—rather than university autonomy and distance-education recognition; thus not binding on the present issue.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rajalakshmi Sasidharan v University of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34895 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJALAKSHMI SASIDHARAN 21 YEARS, D/O.K.K.SASIDHARAN, KOMBATH HOUSE, PORATHUSSERY, IRINJALAKUDA PO., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KARIVATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 685 581. 2. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN KERALA,SENATE CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034. 3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 4. SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. - R1, R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S.C. R3, R4 BY ADV.SRI.T.A.SHAJI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIX IN WPC.34895/08** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** : - EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BBA DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SYLLABUYS FOR UNDER GRADUATE COURSE IN BBA. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. - EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE T.C. ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR MBA PROGRAMME (FULL TIME) ISSUED BY THE 2ND REPSONDENT. EXT.P7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 25.6.08. EXT.P7(b): TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 26.6.08. EXT.P7(cf): TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 25.6.08. - EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION/ORDER DATED 17.11.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 5.7.08 ISSUED BY ST.STEPHEN'S COLLEGE OF ADVANCED STUDIES. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ## RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: - EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 12.6.08 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. - EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE P.R.O. DATED 5.4.05 WHICH IS PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL DATED 18.5.09. /TRUE COPY/ ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34895 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of August, 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** - 1.After hearing this writ petition on facts, quite elaborately, it appears that the petitioner has reasons for heart-burn as she was evidently acting bonafide in undergoing her education as would be noticed hereinafter. 2.After completing her 12[th] standard, the petitioner joined for B.B.A. course under the Mahatma Gandhi University. It was under the Distance Education Programme that she underwent what could be called a course of study in an offcampus centre. The M.G. University does not dispute this fact. The petitioner obtained first class in the B.B.A. examination and M.G. University issued her a certificate in that regard. That certificate shows that she has been admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Business Administration. It does not make any distinction as to whether she underwent a course in an off-campus institution WPC.34895/08 2 under the Distance Education Scheme or in an affiliated college under the main stream or had undergone what is called postal education. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner had even to obtain 85% attendance in the off-campus institution for the purpose of the course. This obviously mean that she underwent a course of study in an institution. 3.Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted for the M.B.A. course in the Institute of Management, Kerala, stated to be attached to the University of Kerala. However, later, that Institute informed her that she could not continue with her course as the University of Kerala has notified that her qualifying degree (BBA) cannot be approved, it having been obtained under the Distance Education Scheme. This writ petition is filed under the aforesaid situation. At the time of admission, an interlocutory order was passed permitting the petitioner to continue the course with the Institute of Management and WPC.34895/08 3 it is stated that she has, by now, completed the course and appeared for the examination in the University of Kerala. The results have been declared and the petitioner has passed the course. 4.However, Ext.R1(c) is the evidence of the resolution of the Academic Council of the University of Kerala to the effect that the course of study that the petitioner underwent under the M.G. University is not recognised and cannot be recognised as a qualifying course for the purpose of admission to M.B.A. in the University of Kerala. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes reference to the judgment of this Court in **Mohanan Nair** v. **State of Kerala** [1994 (2) KLT 537]. That was a decision rendered in relation to teachers in Government service. That decision turned on the interpretation of the contents of a Government Order. That cannot have any bearing on the case in hand on an issue of law. I say this because Universities are constituted under WPC.34895/08 4 different legislations and the Universities and their Authorities have their independent role under the Statute and cannot be compelled to act in any manner beyond their academic freedom, unless of course the situation calls for interference on grounds of wholesome perversity, irrationality or unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power which would be dealt with under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the case in hand, Ext.R1(c) reflects that the Academic Council had taken the views of the Stating Committee, the Dean in the Faculty of Management etc. Therefore, all that the petitioner can now aspire is to seek reconsideration of Ext.R1(c) by moving the Academic Council of the University of Kerala for indulgence, not only because of the particular facts of the petitioner's case but also on account of any reason attributable to the identity between the syllabii being followed by the M.G. University for its different streams of B.B.A. Learned counsel has also pointed out on the strength of Ext.P4 news report that the Government had WPC.34895/08 5 taken up the matter of approval of the Distance Education Programmes by the different Universities even through InterUniversity Consultative Committee. There is no reason why a University would not look into any such request of the petitioner if made appropriately. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner could move the University of Kerala as noted above. It is further ordered that the impugned decisions will stand modified in the event of the University taking any decision in favour of the petitioner as indicated above. If the petitioner makes any representation in this regard to the Registrar of the University of Kerala, let it be placed before the Academic Council for pragmatic consideration so that this young girl student need not further be held back on that issue. The University will take into consideration the request of the petitioner that any WPC.34895/08 6 representation by her be expeditiously considered, at any rate within a period of four months. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.5/08.