High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-04-04Writ petition dismissed.

Rajeevan Kunnath v. University of Calicut

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.5735 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2019-04-04
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajeevan Kunnath

Respondents

University of Calicut represented by its Registrar, Thenhipalam, Malappuram - 623 635
The Vice Chancellor, University of Calicut Thenhipalam, Malappuram - 673 635
The Academic Council of the University of Calicut represented by the Vice Chancellor, Thenhipalam, Malappuram - 673 635

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P.C. Sasidharan
• Sri. Aravinda Kumar Babu
• T.K. S
• Sri. E.S. Ashraf
• Sri. P.E. Sajal

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Santhosh Mathew, SC, Calicut University

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Rajeevan Kunnath, challenges the University of Calicut’s refusal to treat his MA (West Asian Studies) — renamed as MA Politics with Specialisation in West Asian Studies — as equivalent to MA Politics. He contends that the course content overlaps with MA Political Science and that the revised nomenclature should not bar equivalence, arguing that the substantive study in West Asian Studies aligns with political science qualifications required for public service. The matter was referred to the academic authorities; the Board of Studies in West Asian Studies and Political Science held that variation in course structure and the presence of language papers (Russian, French, Arabic) and History within the 50% overlap meant non-equivalence. The Academic Council and the Vice-Chancellor upheld this decision, framing it as an academic propriety issue beyond the scope of judicial review. The petitioner cites Mahatma Gandhi University’s treatment of related degrees (_ext.P4_) and a prior judgment directing a decision after reference to Academic Council, but the university persisted with its determination. The judge emphasizes that academic decisions rest with expert bodies, whose determinations deserve deference; relying on constitutional discretionary writ power, the court declines interference and dismisses the writ petition. The judgment reinforces deference to academic authorities and the autonomy of universities to decide equivalence, where expert bodies find substantial differences in coursework.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Discretionary jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Deference to expert academic bodies in matters of academic equivalence
Courts should not interfere with academic decisions when expert bodies have considered merit

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that MA West Asian Studies, renamed MA Politics with Specialisation in West Asian Studies, is substantially the same as MA Politics and should be treated as equivalent. He pointed to content similarities with MA Political Science and invoked Exts. P4–P6 to illustrate other universities’ practice and prior judgments directing consideration of equivalence. The core claim was that the university’s refusal lacks justification and undermines academic propriety.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (University authorities) maintained that the Board of Studies rejected equivalency after detailed scrutiny. They noted that MA Politics (with West Asian Studies) includes about 50% course content in History and language papers (Russian, French, Arabic), which precludes equivalence with MA Politics. They submitted that Academic Council and Vice-Chancellor decisions, upheld by expert deliberations, reflect scholarly judgments and should not be disturbed by courts.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.C. Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa v. Dr. R.	—	Positive	Cited as authority supporting non-interference by courts in academic matters and deference to expert bodies.
Venkatasubbaiah	(2008) 14 SCC 306	Positive	Used to justify the principle that courts should defer to expert academic decisions.
Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another	(2008) 9 SCC 284	Positive	Cited as authority reinforcing deference to academic determinations.
All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others	(2009) 11 SCC 726	Positive	Cited to uphold the stance that academic bodies’ decisions are entitled to weight.

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 Rajeevan Kunnath v. University of Calicut 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 N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.5735 of 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** **RAJEEVAN KUNNATH AGED 34 YEARS KUNNATH HOUSE PONMERI PARAMBIL (P.O), VILLYAPPALLI, CALICUT - 673 542.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF SRI.P.E.SAJAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 623 635. 2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673 635 3 THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673 635.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUT UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.5735 of 2015** **2** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner seeks to direct the University of Calicut to declare M.A. (West Asian Studies), nomenclature of which was changed as M.A. Politics (with Specialisation in West Asian Studies), as equivalent to M.A. Politics. Further declaration is sought to the effect that since the content of the course underwent by the petitioner is equal to that of the syllabus of M.A. Politics, the action of the University in not declaring M.A. (West Asian Studies) as equivalent to M.A. Politics, has no justification whatsoever. 2. The petitioner was admitted to M.A. (West Asian Studies), a course conducted by University of Calicut, in Kunhalimarakkar Centre for West Asian Studies **WP(C).No.5735 of 2015** **3** which is established as a separate Department for study and research. The subject of study consists of four semesters. After obtaining the degree, the petitioner realised that persons who have obtained M.A. in West Asian Studies included in the faculty of Humanity cannot aspire for public employment in any civil posts in the State for the reason that it is not a prescribed qualification, though the subject studied by the petitioner is similar to that of the course content of M.A. Political Science. When this was brought to the notice of the University, the course contents were revised and the nomenclature of the course was changed as M.A. Politics (with Specialisation in West Asian Studies). 3. The petitioner sought equivalency in respect of his degree. A combined meeting of Board of Studies in West Asian Studies and Political Science, discussed the issue of granting equivalency to M.A. Politics (with Specialisation in West Asian Studies) with M.A. Politics. It was resolved that joining in a particular **WP(C).No.5735 of 2015** **4** course such as M.A. (West Asian Studies) and requesting for degree certificate in another discipline, is against academic propriety. 4. The petitioner contends that in the case of Mahatma Gandhi University, considering the necessity, the course offered in M.A. in Politics and International Relations has been declared as equivalent to that of M.A. Politics, as per Ext.P4. Citing the above fact, the petitioner and similarly situated persons filed W.P.(C) No.29096/2013 before this Court. By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the Vice Chancellor to take a decision in the matter after reference to the Academic Council. The respondents did not take any decision as directed by this Court. Thereupon, the petitioner moved Contempt Case (C) No.1260/2014. Thereafter, the respondents produced Ext.P6 decision of the Academic Council. By Ext.P6, the Academic Council ratified the decision of the Vice Chancellor not to equalise M.A. Politics (with Specialisation in West Asian Studies) of Calicut University **WP(C).No.5735 of 2015** **5** to M.A. Political Science. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P4 and P6. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a statement in the matter. Respondents 1 and 2 state that the Board of Studies discussed in detail in a representation received from the petitioner and others, who have completed M.A. West Asian Studies during 2000-'07, and decided to reject granting equivalency to M.A. (West Asian Studies) and M.A. Politics. A combined meeting of Board of Studies in M.A. Political Science and Board of Studies in M.A. Politics (with Specialisation in West Asian Studies) observed that 50% course in M.A. Politics (with Specialisation in West Asian Studies) was that of History and there were language papers such as Russian, French and Arabic. In the above circumstances, such a course could not be considered as equivalent to M.A. Politics. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. **WP(C).No.5735 of 2015** **6** 6. I have considered the matter in issue. 7. Going by the pleadings in the matter, I find that what is sought for is equivalency of one course conducted by a University, with another course. This is purely an academic matter coming within the realm of expert academic bodies. The statutory authorities and bodies including the Vice Chancellor and Academic Council have considered the matter in detail and on merit, and came to the conclusion that course contents of both the courses in question substantially defer and hence decided not to grant equivalency. Expert bodies like Academic Council consist of persons having specialised knowledge entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education. The decision of such expert bodies should be given due weightage by courts. This Court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the matter, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in _**B.C. Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa v. Dr. R.**_ **WP(C).No.5735 of 2015** **7** _**Venkatasubbaiah** [(2008) 14 SCC 306],_ _**Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another** [(2008) 9 SCC 284],_ and _**All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others** [(2009) 11 SCC 726]_ . The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/05.04.2019 **WP(C).No.5735 of 2015** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SYLLABUS EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN THIS REGARD DATED 5.7.2006 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMBINED MEETING DATED 17.7.2012, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED 28.5.2004 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 29096 OF 2013 DATED 9.12.2013 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :** **R1(1) TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.GA1/B1/9520/03 DATED 6.4.2009.** **R1(2) TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA NO.III(A) 38 OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 15.1.2015.** **R1(3) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL IN THE MEETING HELD ON 15.01.2015.**