Karnataka High Court
Sri Thirumalesh C A vs State Of Karnataka on 2 August, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.2795 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. THIRUMALESH C.A.
S/O LATE ANANTHAIAH C.K.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A #68, ITI, HBCS LAYOUT,
NAYANDHALLI, BENGALURU-560039.
ADMISSION YEAR - 2007
COURSE - B.Sc.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANOJ S.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES), M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY,
MUKTHAGANGOTHRI,
MYSORE-570 006.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3. KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY,
MUKTHAGANGOTHRI,
MYSORE-570 006.
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION).
4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
O/O BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 002.
O/O SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE,
2
P.K. BLOCK, PALACE ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPA, AGA FOR R-1;
SMT. KSHAMA NARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
R-3 SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.09.2021 ANNEXURE-B ISSUED
BY THE R-3 AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16, 19, 21 OF
THE CONSITUTITON OF INDIA.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement No.KSOU:EB/CONV/Collabration/44/2020-21, dated 18.09.2021 (Annexure-B) issued by the Third Respondent as violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent University to consider the case of the Petitioner for issuance of Convocation certificate based on the judgment of this Hon'ble Court Smt. Snehalatha P. Vs. State in W.P.No.8638/2016, DD on 03.03.2016 (Annexure-E) and Manoj Vs. State in W.P.No.25361/2017, DD on 13006.2017 (Annexure- G) and extend the relief of issuance of convocation certificate to the petitioner.
3c. Alternatively Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent University to declare that, the Petitioners under graduate degree in the course of B.sc. (Information Technology) for the academic year 2007-2010 from the Second Respondent University is recognised and valid in terms of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of KSOU Vs. State, in W.P.No.34255/2016, DD on 27.06.2016 (Annexure-F). And, d. Pass any other order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned communication at Annexure-B dated 18.09.2021 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3, Karnataka State Open University (KSOU) to the petitioner informing him that convocation degree certificates in favour of the petitioner 4 cannot be granted in view of the documents referred to at Sl.No.1 to 4 in the reference Column at 1 to 4 of Annexure-
B. In this context, it is pointed out that in several judgments passed by this Court including the cases at Annexures-E, F and G, this Court has come to the conclusion that the said public notices are prospective in nature and will not have retrospective effect so as to affect the grant of convocation degree certificates in favour of the students who have taken admission prior to 2013. It is also submitted that undisputedly, the petitioner enrolled in respondent No.2 -
University in the year 2007 and consequently as held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the public notices at Annexures-C and D dated 16.06.2015 and 11.12.2015, respectively, referred to in the impugned Communication at Annexure-B will not be applicable to the petitioner and as such, there is no impediment or bar for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue convocation degree certificates in favour of the petitioner.
4. So also, inviting my attention to Sl.Nos.3 and 4 at reference column of the impugned communication dated 5 18.08.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said letters also cannot be made the basis to deny convocation degree certificates in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the recognition offered to the courses by the UGC through academic collaborators in open and distance learning (ODL) mode vide Public Notices at Annexures-C and D did not make any distinction between the technical and non-technical courses and as such, the said UGC letter dated 18.08.2021 and the withdrawal notice dated 18.08.2021 referred to in the impugned communication at Annexure-B are also not applicable apart from the same being prospective and not retrospective and will not affect the right of the petitioner to receive convocation degree certificates from respondent Nos.2 and
3.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that in view of the aforesaid UGC letter dated 18.08.2021 and KSOU withdrawal notice dated 18.08.2021, the petitioner is not entitled to convocation degree certificates and as such, 6 there is not merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner while interpreting the effect of the aforesaid public notice at Annexures-C and D dated 16.06.2015 and 11.12.2015, the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the following orders held as under:
"In the case of Smt. Snehalatha Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.8638/2016 dated 03.03.2016):
Petitioner was enrolled with the 3rd
respondent-University for the study of post
graduation course i.e., MA in English for the academic year 2012-13. She was awarded the aforesaid post graduate degree during the academic year 2013-14. The petitioner was selected to the post of Assistant Mistress, which is evident from the final selection list at Annexure-J issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Dakshina Kannada - 5th respondent herein. However, she has not been appointed to the said post on the ground that the degree issued by the 3rd respondent is not valid.7
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a public notice issued by the UGC-the 2nd respondent herein dated 16.6.2015 (Annexure-'L'), which states that the courses offered by the 3rd respondent beyond the academic session 2012-13 shall not be recognized. This public notice does not bar the University to award degrees to those students, who have joined the course for the academic year 2012-13. The post graduation degree awarded to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent-University cannot be held as invalid on the basis of the public notice at Annexure 'L' dated 16.6.2015. Therefore, I direct the 5th respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection to the aforesaid post if she is otherwise eligible.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs."
In the case of Karnataka State Open University Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.34255/2016 dated 27.06.2016):
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Karnataka State Open University has filed this writ petition seeking for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the candidature of the students who have obtained degrees awarded by the petitioner-
University for all its recruitments.
83. The second respondent has issued a notification at Annexure-U dated 30.06.2015, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Assistants/First Division Assistants.
4. The apprehension of the petitioner- University is that the second respondent-KPSC may reject the applications of the candidates, who obtained the degrees from the petitioner-University.
5. Sri. Krishna S. Dixit, learned standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the candidates, who have joined the petitioner- University upto and including the academic session 2012-13, their degrees are recognized and it is immaterial when they have actually completed the degrees.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 is consistent with the stand taken by the UGC in W.P.No.52452/2015 and the order of this Court in W.P.No.8638/2016 dated 3.3.2016.
7. Therefore, the second respondent is not justified in rejecting the applications of the candidates, who have obtained the degrees from the petitioner-University. It is sufficient if the candidates have joined the petitioner - University upto and including the academic session 2012-13 and the date of completion of the degree is immaterial. However, no opinion is expressed in 9 relation to the validity of the degrees obtained by the students by joining the petitioner-University for the academic session 2013-14 onwards.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-KPSC submits that in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the applications of the candidates who have obtained degrees from the petitioner/University are being considered.
9. In view of the clarification by the UGC as above, the second respondent is directed to consider the applications of the candidates, who have joined the petitioner-University upto and including the academic year 2012-13 and obtained degrees for the posts of Assistants/First Division Assistants in accordance with law. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
In the case of Sri. Manoj M. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and another W.P.No.25361/2017 dated 13.06.2017 Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to accept notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri.Santhosh.S.Nagarale is permitted to accept notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner after having completed the II-PUC, has joined the second respondent university to pursue his B.A Degree during the academic year 2011-12 and completed the same during April/May 2014. It is submitted that the first respondent after having satisfied about the 10 genuine claim of the petitioner for the post of Second Division Assistant, appointed the petitioner, based on the B.A degree obtained from the second respondent-University. However, the second respondent-University has not conferred the degree certificate. The petitioner approached the second respondent for which a letter dated 01.06.2017 was issued stating that due to administrative reasons, the original certificate was not issued and the same would be issued later. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he approached the first respondent with the said letter and explained the situation and informed that he was admitted to B.A. degree with the second respondent during the period when the University was recognized by UGC and requested to consider his case, recognizing his B.A degree, vide representation dated 05.06.2017. Since the first respondent was not ready to consider the same, petitioner is before this Court.
3. The issue involved in this writ petition is no more res-integra in view of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.34255/2016 (D.D on 27th June 2016) wherein, on recording the submissions of learned standing counsel appearing for the UGC, this Court has categorically held that the second respondent therein was not justified in rejecting the application of the candidates, who have obtained the degrees from the petitioner-University, it is sufficient if the 11 candidates have joined the petitioner-University upto and including the academic session 2012-13 and the date of completion of the degree is immaterial. Indisputably, the petitioner herein has joined the Bachelor of Arts degree course during the academic year 2011-12 and completed the same during April/May 2014. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to the similar relief in terms of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.34255/2016.
Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to issue Degree certificate to the petitioner in respect of Bachelor of Arts degree completed during April/May 2014 as expeditiously as possible.
The writ petition stands disposed of
accordingly."
8. In fact, in W.P.No.34255/2015 filed by the KSOU, learned counsel for the UGC has categorically submitted that the candidates joined KSOU up to and including the academic year 2012-13 would be entitled to get their degrees recognised and it was immaterial as to when they had actually completed the degrees, this Court after recording the said submission, has come to the conclusion that the said stands taken by the UGC is 12 consistent with the stands taken by them in the earlier matters.
9. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that respondent Nos.2 and 3 committed an error in rejecting the request/claim of the petitioner for grant of convocation degree certificates on the ground that the same is not permissible in view of the public notices dated 16.06.2015 and 11.12.2015 .
10. In so far as the reliance placed on the UGC letter and KSOU withdrawal notice dated 18.08.2021 is concerned, the said letter, apart from being prospective and not retrospective nature, the said letters would also not have any impact or bearing on the right of the petitioner to receive/obtain convocation degree certificates, particularly when a perusal of Annexure-B will indicate that all courses including technical and non-technical course have been included while issuing public notices and have been referred to in the impugned order at Annexure-B. Under these circumstances, the impugned communication at Annexure-B refusing the grant/issue of convocation degree 13 certificate on the basis of the UGC letter dated 18.08.2021, KSOU withdrawal notice dated 18.08.2021 cannot be sustained on this ground also.
11. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned communication at Annexure-B dated 18.09.2021 deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the concerned respondents to issue convocation degree certificates in favour of the petitioner.
12. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 18.09.2021 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-B is hereby quashed.
(iii) The concerned respondents are directed to issue degree convocation certificate in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of four weeks from 14 the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bmc