High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-07Writ petition allowed. Admissions of petitioner...

Sandra S. George and Anumol K. Jose v. University of Kannur and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 6430 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-06-07
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition is allowed. The petitioners’ admissions are regularised; they shall be permitted to continue the course and the results of their examinations shall be published. Ext.P5 and related actions are set aside insofar as it affects the petitioners. The University may initiate proceedings under its Regulations against the college for failure to verify eligibility, and the college’s role in admissions is underscored. The decision emphasizes that regularisation is permissible where the student is not found guilty of suppression or misrepresentation and where the admissions were facilitated by the college with the university’s acquiescence.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed. Admissions of petitioners regularised; petitioners to continue the course and have their results published. The university’s regulatory authority remains; the college may face action under its regulations for inadequate verification of eligibility.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sandra S. George
Anumol K. Jose

Respondents

University of Kannur
The Vice Chancellor, University of Kannur
The Registrar, University of Kannur
The Joint Registrar (Examinations), University of Kannur
The Controller of Examinations, University of Kannur
The Principal, Mary Matha Arts & Science College, Alakode

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Grashious KuriaKose (Sr.)
• Adv. George Mathews
• Adv. T.T. Rakesh

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Viju Thomas, Sr. Counsel (SC)
• Adv. T.V. Jayakumar Namboodiri

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, Sandra S. George and Anumol K. Jose, are M.Com students admitted to Mary Matha Arts and Science College, Alakode, under the University of Kannur. They contend that during the 2014-16 programme, they were allowed to appear in the first three semesters and that the results of the first semester were withheld only afterward. They allege that the 6th respondent college cancelled their Post Graduate examination registration (Ext.P5) for reasons of non‑eligibility, and that they were not guilty of suppressing facts or misrepresenting information. They seek continuation of their studies and regularisation of their admissions, arguing that the university, and not the college, bears responsibility for verification of eligibility at the time of examinations. The university contends that eligibility checks were primarily the college’s task; it argues that provisional registration was granted to all candidates for the first semester due to the college’s admissions, and that a GPA below the required threshold (1.8) would justify cancellation. The court cites Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal to support the principle of regularisation when a student is not guilty of suppression. The judge notes that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the first three semesters and that cancellation was declared only after the 3rd semester; the court grants relief, directing publication of results and continuation of the course, while preserving the university’s right to act under its regulations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Right to Information Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that they were admitted and permitted to attend three semesters of a four-semester course; cancellation of their registration after publication of the first-semester results was unwarranted since they were not guilty of suppression or misrepresentation. They submit that regularisation of admissions and continuation of the course is warranted, citing equitable principles and prior Supreme Court rulings to support regularising admissions where proper explanation exists.

Contentions of Respondents

The university maintains that eligibility checks were not feasible for every applicant at admission; provisional registrations were granted to all candidates based on college admissions. Only after verification at the time of examinations was the case for cancellation made, grounding it in GPA criteria (minimum GPA 1.8). It argues that the college bears responsibility for verifying eligibility, and that cancellation at a belated stage does not automatically entitle continuation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another	2009(1) SCC 610	Positive	Court cites the principle that regularisation of admission may be justified even when initial admission violates regulations, if the student is not guilty of suppression or misrepresentation.
Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University	(1976) 1 SCC 311	Mentioned Only	Cited as related authority; supports general principle but not central to the ruling.
Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur	(1989) 1 SCC 399	Mentioned Only	Cited for related proposition; not a core basis for the decision.

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 Sandra S. George and Anumol K. Jose v. University of Kannur 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 6430 of 2016 (C) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **1. SANDRA S.GEORGE AGED 23 YEARS D/O. SHAJU ANTHEENATHU, M.COM STUDENT MARY MATHA ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, ALAKODE KANNUR RESIDING AT ANTHEENATTU, THERTHALLY P.O. ALAKODE VIA, KANNUR - 670 571.** **2. ANUMOL K. JOSE, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. JOSE, M.COM STUDENT MARY MATHA ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, ALAKODE, KANNUR RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEL, CHITTARIKKAL P.O., CHITTARIKKAL KASARAGOD - 671 326.** **BY ADVS.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.) SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS SRI.T.T.RAKESH** **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** ## **1. UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR** **REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR THAVAKKARA CAMPUS, KANNUR - 670 002.** ## **2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR** **UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, THAVAKKARA CAMPUS KANNUR - 670 002.** **3. THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, THAVAKKARA CAMPUS KANNUR - 670 002.** **4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (EXAMINATIONS) UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, THAVAKKARA CAMPUS KANNUR - 670 002.** **5. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, KANNUR - 670 002.** **6. THE PRINCIPAL MARY MATHA ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, ALAKODE KANNUR - 670 571.** **R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY R6 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 6430 of 2016 (C) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **P1 - THE CONSOLIDATED GRADE CARDS FOR THE B.COM PROGRAM OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.** **P2 - THE CONSOLIDATED GRADE CARDS FOR THE B.COM PROGRAM OF THE SECOND PETITIONER.** **P3 - THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITI ONER FOR I SEMESTER M.COM DEGREE (REGULAR) EXAMINATION NOVEMBER 2014.** **P4 - THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DT. 27.1.2016.** **P5 - THE COMMUNICATION OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ISSUED TO SIXTH RESPONDENT DT. 30.1.2016.** **P6 - THE MEMO SENT BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED NIL.** **P7 - THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------** **ANNEXURE R5 (a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 123/2015 DATED 29.12.2015 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE** **jma** ## K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 6430 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 07[th] day of June, 2016 ## J U D G M E N T The petitioners are students of M.Com having been admitted to the course; conducted in the academic years 2014-16. The petitioners contend that they were permitted to appear for the first, second and third semester examinations and after the third semester examinations; when the results of the first semester was declared, their results were withheld. The 6[th] respondent was also issued with Ext.P5 order cancelling the Post Graduate examination registration of the petitioners along with another. The petitioners contend that they had not suppressed any facts before the College or the University. They were admitted and continued for three semesters and were suddenly threatened with cancellation as per Ext.P3. The petitioners seek that they be continued and their admissions regularised. The petitioners also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009(1) SCC 610 Guru WPC.No.6430/2016 : 2 : Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the University would contend that the delay in cancellation of registration was only for reason of the University examining the credentials of the students only at the time of conduct of the first examination in the course. The University is unable to scrutinise the applications of individual students at the time of admissions and hence the said task is left to the colleges. Hence all the candidates who applied for the 1[st] semester examination were given provisional registration without verifying their eligibility. It is also contended that the eligibility stipulation of the University was a minimum of 1.8 grade point (GPA) for the core and complimentary courses meaning the Part III portion of the Graduate examination. Both the petitioners did not have the required GPA is the ground for cancellation of registration of the PG Course to which the petitioners were admitted to the 6[th] respondent's College. WPC.No.6430/2016 : 3 : 3. Definitely the University cannot verify all the applications at the time of admission and it would be the responsibility of the affiliated colleges to verify that the students who are admitted to the courses satisfy the eligibility conditions stipulated by the University. But however, at least at the point of first examination, the University has the duty to verify the certificates of eligibility and decide on whether the registration granted by the admitting College is proper or not. The petitioners admittedly were allowed to participate in the first, second and third semesters of the course which has the duration of four semesters. The hall ticket issued to one of the petitioners is produced at Ext.P3. Though the University contends that it is a provisional admission, no such reservation is made in Ext.P3. The University having permitted the petitioners to participate in the first, second and third semesters cannot turn around at this belated stage when the petitioners are in the 4[th] semester of the course, to deny WPC.No.6430/2016 : 4 : continuance in the course. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforecited decision has considered a similar and almost identical case. Despite the fact that the admission of the student was against the regulation of the University, his admission was regularised, since the student was found to be not guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation of facts. Therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically observed that the University had permitted the student to take the first semester examination as if he is eligible to be admitted to the course and then had cancelled the registration. (Also see (1976) 1 SCC 311 Shri Krishan Vs The Kurukshetra University and (1989)1 SCC 399 Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur) 5. In the present case, the University had permitted the petitioners to participate in the examination in all the three semesters and only on the declaration of the results of the 1[st] WPC.No.6430/2016 : 5 : semester that too, after the 3[rd] semester examinations, the petitioners were informed of the decision to cancel their registration. In such circumstance, despite the fact that the petitioners having no eligibility to be admitted in the course, they cannot be found to be at fault. The admissions were made by the admitting college; the 6[th] respondent, on production of certificates. The University too permitted them to appear in three semester examinations in a course having four semesters. If the petitioners were told of their ineligibility at the first instance or at least their participation in the examinations were provisional, then this Court would not have interfered. But that having not been done, Ext.P5 and P6 would stand set aside insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The petitioners admissions are regularised only looking at the facts of the present case. The petitioners results shall be published and the petitioners shall also be permitted to continue the course and conclude the same. WPC.No.6430/2016 : 6 : 6. Writ petition is allowed. Considering the fact that the 6[th] respondent college at the time of admission had not verified the eligibility conditions properly, the University would be entitled to take any proceedings as permitted under their regulations. The admission of the petitioners either is collusive or is sheer negligence; unpardonable on either counts. The regularisation of the petitioners admission shall not stand in the way of such proceedings, since the College cannot feign ignorance of the regulations of the University to which they are affiliated and the eligibility conditions. Sd/- - (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge