THASLEEMA NASRIM N.M & ANESA T.K. v. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 39814 of 2015 (B)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): -------------** ## **1. THASLEEMA NASRIM N.M** **D/O. MOHAMMEDUNNI, RESIDING AT NONNAMPULLY HOUSE, PUNNAYOOR P.O, NORTH PUNNAYOOR, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR** **2. ANEESA T.K** - **D/O.KARIM, RESIDING AT THEKKEPURACKKAL HOUSE, VARAVOOR P.O, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, CALICUT 673 635** **2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT, KERALA 673 635** ## **3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR** **EQUVALENCY AND MIGRATION SECTION, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT 673 635** ## **R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERS** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2016,ALONG WITH WPC NO.18271/2016 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 39814 of 2015 (B)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KAMARAJ IN FAVOR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE MADURAI KAMRAJ UNIVERSITY IN RESPECT OF THEIR BCA COURSE** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COURSE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN LIEU OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MADURAI KAMRAJ UNIVERSITY IN RESPECT OF THEIR REORGANIZATION** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETAILS OF SUBJECT FOR EACH YEAR FOR THE COURSE OF BCA CONDUCTING BY THE MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EQUIVALENCY PATTERN ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE REORGANIZATION OF BCA COURSE CONDUCTED BY THE MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITYH AND OTHER COURSES OF CERTAIN OTHER UNIVERSITIES** **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADMIT CARD FOR MCA ENTRANCE EXAMINATION 2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROVISIONAL RANK LIST FOR THE COURSE OF MCA ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -----------------------** **TRUE COPY** **jma** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) Nos. 39814 of 2015 & 18271 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26[th] day of May, 2016 ## J U D G M E N T The three petitioners, in the two writ petitions, are aggrieved with the fact they have been declined permission to write the examination of the MCA course, to which they secured admission in colleges, affiliated to the University of Calicut. The dispute arose since all the three petitioners did not study Mathematics as a paper, in the Higher Secondary level, ie: Plus two level, as it is normally termed. The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 18271/2016 did her Plus Two in the Vocational Higher Secondary stream under the State Board of Kerala and the others in the regular stream under the same board. After Plus two, the petitioners undertook their BCA graduate studies in the Universities in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.18271/2016 took BCA from the Bharathiyar University and the WPC.Nos 39814/2015 & 18271/16 : 2 : other two petitioners from Madurai Kamraj University. The BCA degree secured by the petitioners had Mathematics as a subject in the curriculum. 2. The objection of the University was due to the fact that they have not undertaken studies in Mathematics at the Plus Two stream. The University, based on Ext.P3 produced in W.P(C) 18271/2016, contends that recognition of a degree from an outside University, as equivalent to the degree offered by the Calicut University would depend upon three conditions; (i) that the said course is of the same duration as that in the Calicut University; (ii) is of the same nomenclature in the same discipline and (iii) must have the same eligibility criteria for admission. There is no dispute with respect to the first two conditions and the objection is on the ground that the petitioners did not have the same eligibility criteria for being admitted to the BCA degree of the Calicut University. A student could get admission to the BCA course of the WPC.Nos 39814/2015 & 18271/16 : 3 : Calicut University; only if the student has a Plus Two qualification with Mathematics as a subject. The petitioners had undertaken studies with Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the Plus Two stream and had obtained BCA Degree from outside Universities; wherein admissions to BCA was not regulated by the condition of Mathematics being a subject for Plus two. The learned Standing Counsel would assert that unless such a criteria is satisfied, there could be no eligibility for admission to MCA. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in one of the cases and the learned Counsel in the other writ petition would rely on the equivalency certificate issued with respect to the specific graduate courses (BCA) of the two outside Universities, by the Calicut University. It is also contended that the petitioners who were admitted in the academic year 2015-16, on the basis of the ranks obtained in an entrance examination, has been declined continuance in the course at the fag end of the year. WPC.Nos 39814/2015 & 18271/16 : 4 : 4. The University would argue that there can be no allegation of delay raised against the University since it was incumbent upon the College, admitting the student, to verify the qualifications of the students admitted and reject those who were unqualified. No College affiliated to the University can plead ignorance of the prescription laid down by the University. Considering the numerous admissions made in a particular academic year to the various colleges under the University it is difficult for the University to carry out the verification at the admission stage. The responsibility to verify the eligibility is hence, on the admitting College and the University verifies the qualifications only when the applications for hall tickets to appear in the examinations are processed in the first instance in any course. The contention of the objection having been made at the fag end of the academic year, cannot be countenanced, especially noticing the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the WPC.Nos 39814/2015 & 18271/16 : 5 : University; which have to be accepted. 5. It cannot be disputed that the Colleges have a responsibility to verify the eligibility and in case of regular degrees of a University or deemed University, the three conditions as extracted above contained in Ext.P3 has to be scrupulously followed. This does not, however, detract from the fact that Ext.P3 is a general order issued with respect to the equivalency of degrees obtained from Universities or from those institutions deemed to be Universities, which are established by an Act of the Assembly of a State or Parliament. Hence, when a student qualified in a particular degree from any of the deemed University or deemed to be University, as noticed above, seeks admission to the courses under the Calicut University, there would be no requirement for an equivalency certificate if the three conditions are satisfied. The contention of the University as to the specific conditions of equivalence; noticed above, cannot be disputed; but the present WPC.Nos 39814/2015 & 18271/16 : 6 : case brings forth a subtle distinction. 6. Equivalency certificate is one issued by the University after looking into the Syllabus of the course of the outside University, to come to a decision as to whether the course curriculum, the subjects offered and the syllabi are similar to that offered by the Calicut University. It is also a common practice as revealed from the documents that certain degrees of certain Universities are by specific orders equated with identical courses and degrees offered by the Calicut University, in which event, there would also be no requirement for a separate equivalency certificate. The question then is as to whether in such cases there would be a requirement for satisfying the three conditions enumerated in Ext.P3. 7. In the instant case, admittedly the courses undertaken by the petitioners in the outside Universities have been recognised as equivalent to the BCA offered by the Calicut WPC.Nos 39814/2015 & 18271/16 : 7 : University. Ext.P4 in W.P(C)No.18271/2016 recognises the BCA (Distant/Correspondence/Off campus) degree of Bharathiyar and M.G Universities to be equivalent to the BCA (SDE) Degree of Calicut University. The BCA Degree offered by Madurai Kamraj University is also recognised as equivalent to that offered by the Calicut University, as is evidenced from the list of undergraduate courses so recognised and deemed equivalent as per Ext.P6 produced in WP(C) No.39814/2015. In the context of the BCA Degree of the outside Universities having been recognised by specific orders,this Court is of the opinion that the three conditions need not be satisfied. 8. The petitioners though had undertaken Plus Two with Physics, Chemistry and Biology, had studied Mathematics as a subject in the BCA Course, under the two different Universities mentioned above. It is also an admitted fact that the Calicut WPC.Nos 39814/2015 & 18271/16 : 8 : University specifies eligibility for MCA Courses as a Graduate degree in BCA. The graduate degree in BCA of the two outside Universities having been recognised as equivalent to that offered by the Calicut University, there need be no further examination as to whether the eligibility criteria of the said graduate courses was similar to that for the degree course offered by the Calicut University. 9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University relies on a judgment in W.P(C) No.235 of 2012 dated 11.03.2015. Therein this Court had upheld the regulation of the University and declined regularisation of an admission made without equivalency. Therein the BBA course conducted by Calicut University was not recognised by the Kerala University. The Board of Studies of the Kerala University rejected the request of equivalence of the BBA Distant Education Course of the Calicut University. Despite the fact that the Calicut University was also a WPC.Nos 39814/2015 & 18271/16 : 9 : University recognised under the UGC, this Court refused consideration of the request of the students. This Court also referred to two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2009(1) SCC 610 [Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and 2010(8) SCR 475 [Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur]. The question was whether this Court would issue directions against the regulations of the University. In the present case, such a question does not arise since this Court has found the eligibility of the petitioners from the regulations of the University and specific orders of equivalence issued by the University as against the Graduate Courses conducted by the outside Universities. In academic matters the word of the University is final and this court would not impose its own opinion. But here the University has spoken through its orders issuing equivalence. 10. In such circumstance, this court is of the opinion that the objection raised by the University; against the admission WPC.Nos 39814/2015 & 18271/16 : 10 : of the petitioners to the MCA Course is legally unsustainable. The petitioners are declared to be eligible to be admitted to the MCA Course of the Calicut University and their qualification is found to be that required as per the eligibility norms of the said University read with the specific orders of equivalence brought out by the University; with respect to their BCA graduate qualification. 11. The University shall issue Hall tickets immediately, on instructions received from the learned Standing Counsel and petitioners shall be allowed to participate in the examinations commencing from tomorrow, the 27[th] of May, 2016. The learned Standing Counsel is directed to instruct the University since there would be some delay in issuing the judgment as such. Writ petition is allowed. No costs Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge