High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2010-11-03Writ petitions allowed; directions to regularis...

Shalaz S. v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).Nos. 21343/2007-N & 11735/2008-V

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Judgment Date: 2010-11-03
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed. The second respondent is directed to regularise the admission, publish the petitioner’s result, and issue the degree certificate within six weeks. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; directions to regularise admission, publish results, and issue degree within six weeks; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shalaz S., S/o. Shamsudeen

Respondents

Mahatma Gandhi University (represented by the Vice Chancellor)
Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University
MES College, Marampally, Aluva (represented by the Principal)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.M Abdul Aziz (Senior Advocate)
• A. Shafeek

Counsels for Respondents

• T.A. Shaji, SC, M.G. University
• Babu Karukapadath
• M.A. Vaheeda Babu
• Jagan George
• K.A. Noushad
• P.G. Pramod

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Shalaz S., challenged the University’s stance that his admission to the MBA course was irregular and liable to be cancelled. He held a B.Com with Computer Applications, enabling MBA entry, and sought to join MBA by 31 October 2006 after the provisional marklist (Ext. P1) was communicated on 27 October 2006 while his supplementary results were pending due to a May 2005 failure. The University published the final supplementary result on 19 April 2007 and rejected his first-semester MBA application for lack of a qualifying certificate and marklist (Ext. P3), though he was allowed provisional entry with a hall ticket. Interim Court directions enabled him to pay fees and appear for further semesters. In WP 11735/2008, Ext. P9 reflected the University’s refusal to regularise his admission. The University argued that a confidential provisional marklist is for ranking and cannot justify admission, and the College should have refused entry on 31 October 2006. The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle from Tiju Thomas v. Principal St. Stephens College (ILR 1991 Ker. 832), asserting that provisional marks may anchor admission in certain circumstances. The Court observed the University’s long delay in publishing the final results and found the facts distinguishable from a Division Bench decision (W.P.(C).No.4765/2008). It held that the provisional communication before cutoff and the final results do not automatically negate admission, and directed regularisation, publication of results, and issuance of degrees within six weeks, effectively allowing the petitions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the University’s insistence on a final qualifying certificate contradicts the provisional marklist furnished to the College before the admission deadline. He asserts there was no fraud or misrepresentation and that provisional marks were lawfully treated as enabling admission under the regulations. The interim directions of this Court allowed admission-related actions to proceed and permitted semester appearances. Relying on the principle cited in Tiju Thomas v. Principal St. Stephens College, he contends that provisional marks may support admission in integrative circumstances and that the University’s delay in publishing the final results should not penalize the student who acted on the provisional communication.

Contentions of Respondents

The University argues that provisional marklists are only for ranking and do not authorize admission; admission on 31 October 2006 cannot be regularised without a final qualifying certificate. It notes the final results were published late (19 April 2007) and contends that the earlier Ext. P9 rejection in WP 11735/2008 was valid. The respondents submit that the Division Bench decision in W.P.(C).No.4765/2008 is distinguishable on its facts, and that the University is not at fault for delays in final result publication. They urge adherence to statutory regulations and emphasize that irregular admissions cannot be regularised merely due to interim directions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Tiju Thomas v. Principal St. Stephens College and Another	ILR 1991 (3) Ker. 832	Mentioned Only	Cited to support general principles; the court distinguished its applicability based on the facts of the present case.
W.P.(C).No.4765/2008 (Division Bench decision)	(no specific reporter cited in-text)	Distinguished	The court noted this decision but found the present facts distinguishable and did not apply it as precedent.

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 Shalaz S. v. Mahatma Gandhi University 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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1932** **WP(C).No. 21343 of 2007(N)** **----------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------------** **SHALAZ S., S/O. SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 24 YRS, DARUL FALAGH, 1ST MILE, KAYAMKULAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.A.SHAFEEK** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------** **1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KOTTAYAM.** **2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM.** **3. MES COLLEGE, MARAMPALLY P.O., ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL.** **R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R3 BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH** **SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU** **SRI.JAGAN GEORGE** **SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD** **SRI.P.G.PRAMOD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 11735 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **svs/** ## **WP(C).No. 21343/2007(N)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL MARK LIST SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT COLLEGE.** - **P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **P3: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 06/02/2007 REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER.** - **P4: COPY OF THE MARK LIST DATED 19/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 04/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **svs/** ## **T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.** **~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.21343/2007-N & 11735/2008-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 3[rd] day of November, 2010** ## **J U D G M E N T** The same petitioner has approached this Court by filing these two writ petitions aggrieved by the stand of the University that the admission of the petitioner to the MBA Course is irregular and is liable to be cancelled. 2. The petitioner was having the qualification of B.Com with Computer Application which enabled him to get admission to MBA course. At the time of applying for the MBA course, he was awaiting the result of the supplementary examination of EDP and Computer Applications of B.Com which was held in August 2006 since he failed in the public examination held in May 2005. 3. The petitioner submitted an application before the University requesting to communicate to the third respondent-College the provisional marklist for enabling him to join MBA course without losing a year. Ext.P1 is the copy of the provisional marklist dated 27/10/2006. The last date for receipt of the application, fixed by the College for joining the course was 31/10/2006. The petitioner was admitted to the course. 4. The final publication of the result of the supplementary examination was made on 19/04/2007 by the ## W.P.(C). Nos.21343/2007 & 11735/2008 ## -:2:- University. When the petitioner applied for appearing for the first semester MBA examination, his application was rejected on the ground that he had not submitted the qualifying certificate and marklist. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application and Ext.P3 is the copy of memo, rejecting the application, issued by the University. The petitioner was permitted to appear for the first semester examination by issuing a provisional hall ticket. The second respondent scheduled the second semester examination on 27/07/2007 and as his results were withheld he could not apply for the same. This is under challenge in W.P.(C). No.21343/2007. On the basis of the interim direction of this Court dated 11/07/2007, the University accepted the fees for the second semester examination subject to the result of the writ petition. By subsequent interim orders, he was allowed to remit the fees and appear for the third and fourth semester examinations. 5. Therefore, in the light of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has appeared for all the semester examinations. 6. In W.P.(C).No.11735/2008, the challenge is against Ext.P9 proceedings issued by the University whereby the request for regularising the petitioner's admission has been rejected by the University. ## W.P.(C). Nos.21343/2007 & 11735/2008 -:3:- 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. The stand of the University appears to be that the communication of the confidential mark list will not enable the petitioner to get admission to P.G Course. The same can be used only for ranking a candidate for admission. The contention, therefore, is that the Principal is not justified in admitting the petitioner on 31/10/2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even going by the final result published, there is no change in the result. It is pointed out that the University had communicated the marks to the College in terms of the relevant regulations, which enables a candidate to make such an application. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has not obtained admission by fraud or misrepresentation and reliance is placed on the principles stated in the decision **Tiju Thomas** ## **v. Principal St. Stephens College and Another [ILR 1991 (3)** ## **Ker.832]** . 8. Some of the facts relevant in the case show that the supplementary examination for B.Com degree was conducted on August 2006. The last date for receipt of the application was 31/10/2006. In the meanwhile, the provisional mark list was communicated by Ext.P1 ## W.P.(C). Nos.21343/2007 & 11735/2008 ## -:4:- communication dated 27/10/2006. The final marklist was published by the University only on 19/04/2007. Therefore, it is evident that there is long delay on the part of the University in publishing the result of the examination. Then the question is whether in such circumstances, the admission of the candidate should be cancelled when there is no fault on the part of the candidate. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the University brought to my notice a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C).No.4765/2008. The facts of the case therein are that the result of the qualifying examination was published on 29/11/2007 but the last date for receipt of the applications was 29/09/2007. The students who were expecting the results were admitted in the College. It is in those circumstances, the issue was considered by this Court. This Court was of the view that a student who has taken the qualifying examination is ineligible for admission to P.G.Course unless there are specific provisions enabling such admission. But, here the same is distinguishable on the basis of the peculiar facts of the case. The University had communicated provisional mark list to the College in terms of the regulations, that too before the cut off date for receipt of the application for closing the admission, namely, 31/10/2006. Going by the ## W.P.(C). Nos.21343/2007 & 11735/2008 -:5:- provisional marklist also, the petitioner had passed the examination. It was a case where he had failed in one paper in the earlier examination. Therefore, evidently, the admission that was made by the College cannot be said to be irregular or illegal in any manner. The final publication of the result, evidently, was only on 19/04/2007, that too after a long period. The question is whether the same can be put against the candidate so as to nullify admission itself. 10. In the light of the facts of the case, it can be seen that the communication of the provisional marklist was acted upon by the College for granting admission to the student. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is an irregular admission. The situation is not similar to that of the case decided by the Division Bench noted above wherein the candidate was merely waiting for the publication of the result of the examination and whileso he was admitted. Therefore, the same makes a difference with regard to the facts of this case. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the College for granting admission or the student getting admission to the College. Therefore, the rejection of the candidate's admission as per Ext.P9 produced in W.P.(C).No.11735/2008 cannot be accepted. W.P.(C). Nos.21343/2007 & 11735/2008 -:6:- 11. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed. There will be a direction to the second respondent to regularise the admission and publish the result of the petitioner and issue degree certificate within a period of six weeks. No costs. **(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)** ms