Kerala High Court
Femy Varghese vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 1 June, 2009
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13721 of 2007(H)
1. FEMY VARGHESE, D/O.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL,LITTLE FLOWER
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.J.GEORGE KUNNUMPURATH
For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :01/06/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 13721 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an unfortunate student who believed the representations made by the 2nd respondent that their institution is affiliated to the Allahabad Agricultural Institute which claimed the status of a deemed University. Based on the affiliation of the 2nd respondent's institution to that University and pursuant to Ext.P1 prospectus issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner applied for the B.Sc (Clinical Optometry) Course offered by the 2nd respondent. As per Ext.P2 prospectus, the qualification prescribed for the course was a pass in Higher Secondary course with Biology. But, in the note included in the prospectus it is stated that, students who passed 10+2 or graduation in subjects other than Science and Biology will have to study one additional paper namely, 'Remedial Biology' in the first semester of their course. Petitioner passed Higher Secondary course with Physics, Chemistry and Computer Science. Petitioner did not study the subject Biology. She was admitted to the course by the 2nd respondent and she joined the course. While she was so WPC : 13721/07 -:2:- studying, in view of Ext.P6 notice issued by the University Grants Commission it turned out that the Allahabad Agricultural Institute did not enjoy the status of a deemed University. Consequently, the petitioner and 34 other students who joined the course of B.Sc (Clinical Optometry) with the 2nd respondent were left in the lurch. They represented to the Government, who passed Exts.P8 and P9 orders directing the 2nd respondent to obtain affiliation from the 1st respondent University. Pursuant to that, the 1st respondent University considered the applications submitted by the 2nd respondent for affiliation to the B.Sc (Clinical Optometry) course and granted affiliation for the 2005-06 batch to undergo and complete their course in the 2nd respondent's institute, inter alia, subject to the following condition:
"i) Before regularising the admission of students2005-06batch it shall be ensured that the students possess the minimum eligibility for admission to B.Sc.Optometry course as stipulated in the Regulations of the University, viz, candidates for admission to the course shall have passed the Pre-Degree examinations of M.G. University or any other examination equivalent thereto, recognized by the M.G. University, with 50%marks in Science subjects Group (II)in Physics, Chemistry and Biology with usual relaxation allowed by the Government of Kerala for SC/ST and other backward classes."
WPC : 13721/07 -:3:-
2. Although the admission of the other 34 students were regularised still the petitioner's admission was not, since as per the regulations of the 1st respondent University, for admission to the B.Sc (Clinical Optometry) Course, the basic qualification prescribed is a pass in Pre-degree examination of M.G. University or any other equivalent examination recognised by the 1st respondent University with 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, whereas the petitioner passed Higher Secondary course with subjects Physics, Chemistry and Computer Science. Petitioner represented to the 1st respondent University seeking regularisation of her admission. That was rejected by Ext.P12 order of the 1st respondent University, wherein the University held that since the petitioner does not possess the basic qualification prescribed for admission, her admission cannot be regularised. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing writ petition(C) No.13721/07in which this Court passed the following interim order:
"It is also directed, that since the course itself was affiliated to the University only to save the students such as the petitioner who were already admitted for B.Sc Optometry Course, that the WPC : 13721/07 -:4:- first respondent, University shall re-consider Ext.P12 and pass fresh orders in the matter."
3. The University considered the case of the petitioner again in the light of the interim order. By Ext.P16, the University again rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of her admission. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i) call for the records leading to Ext.P12 dated13.4.07and Ext.P16 dated 17.2.08 of the 1st respondent and to quash the same by issuance of a writ petition of certiorari or any other appropriate writ.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction, directing the 1st respondent to regularise the admission of the petitioner for B.Sc(Opt) Degree under the 2nd respondent,since she was admitted on the basis of Ext.P1and P2 and the 3rd respondent had consented to absorb the 35 students as per Ext.P5 and may permit the petitioner to complete the Degree and declare here results.
iii) issue a writ or direction, directing the respondents to exempt the petitioner alone from the criteria stipulated in Ext.P10. Since she has studied remedial biology in the 1st semester as per Ext.P1 and P2."
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University controverting the claim of the petitioner. According to them, the admissions to various courses affiliated to the University are WPC : 13721/07 -:5:- governed by regulations which prescribe the qualifications for admission to such courses. There is no provision for relaxation of such qualifications on the ground of sympathy, is their contention. They would submit that in so far as the qualification prescribed for admission to B.Sc (Clinical Optometry) course is a pass in Pre-degree with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as subjects, no students who did not study Biology as one of the subjects in Pre-degree or Higher Secondary course can claim admission to the course.
5. I have heard the rival contentions in detail. At the outset I note that, the petitioner has not challenged the condition extracted above in Ext.P10. Even if that condition was not there in Ext.P10, in so far as the qualifications are prescribed in the regulations, the University could not have regularised the admission of the petitioner who did not possess the qualification prescribed by the regulations. It is the prerogative of the University to prescribe qualifications for admission and therefore such prescription also cannot be challenged validly. The petitioner has not been able to point out any provision in the University Act or Statutes or Regulations whereby the WPC : 13721/07 -:6:- University could relax the basic qualifications prescribed for admission to various courses. In fact, I am of opinion that there should not be such a power of relaxation, insofar as it would only lower the standards of education in the State. After having prescribed specific qualifications to admission for a specific course, the University cannot, depending on individuals, relax such qualifications, which if permitted would give room for arbitrariness, nepotism, etc. which in turn would affect the standards of education in the State.
6. The petitioner would contend that insofar as it is to save 35 students who joined the course pursuant to orders of the Government of Kerala, the University had granted affiliation to the course and it is discriminatory that the petitioner alone should be left out. Petitioner would further contend that it is because of no fault of hers that she was put in such predicament and therefore this Court should come to her assistance for regularisation of her admission. I would certainly sympathise with the petitioner for her plight. But I do not think that it is because of no fault of hers that she is in the present situation. Before joining the course, she should have WPC : 13721/07 -:7:- ascertained the details of the institution where she had applied for admission and whether the institution was an affiliated institution. She had not properly done the same and that is why she is in the predicament. Even though the petitioner deserves sympathy, I do not think that I can direct the University to overlook their Statutes to regularise the admission of the petitioner in the name of sympathy. If I do so, that would be against the rule of law and would lead to anarchy and lowering of the standards of education in the State. In fact, there is wide spread complaints in the State that the standards of education in the State is going down day-by-day. I am not inclined to add to that situation. Therefore, although the petitioner deserves sympathy, in the name of sympathy, I cannot direct the 1st respondent University to regularise her admission against the Statutes. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb