Kerala High Court
George Varghese John vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 11 April, 2014
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/21ST CHAITHRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 24882 of 2011 (I)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
GEORGE VARGHESE JOHN,
KOCHATTU HOUSE, POICKATTUSSERY,
CHENGAMANAD PO.,
ERNAKULAM - PIN 683 578.
BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA),SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADVS.SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA
SMT.RINU JOSE
SRI.AMAL GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSINI HILLS PO, KOTTAYAM 686 560,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
SREENARAYANA GURU INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
THEKKETHAZHAM,
MANNAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11/04/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.24882/2011 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF MARK SHEET OF BOARD EXAMS ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE DIPLOMA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONSULATE
GENERAL OF INDIA, HOUSTON, ON 23/06/2011.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DTD. 25/07/2011.
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT DTD. 18/08/2011.
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM HEBRON HIGH SCHOOL, TEXAS
TO MAHATMAGANDHI UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DTD. 24/0-8/2011.
EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT DTD. 31/08/2011.
EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF
INDIAN UNIVERSITIES DTD. 05/09/2011.
EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD.
13/09/2011.
EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MG
UNIVERSITY DTD. 16/07/2005.
EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MG
UNIVERSITY DTD. 29/06/2006.
EXHIBIT P13: COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KERALA
UNIVERSITY DTD. 28/10/2013.
Kss ..2/-
..2.....
WPC.NO.24882/2011 (I)
EXHIBIT P14: COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CALICUT
UNIVERSITY DTD. 09/01/2014.
EXHIBIT P15: COPY OF THE DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEB PORTAL OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES.
EXHIBIT P16: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/12/2013.
EXHIBIT P17: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COUNSELOR OF
LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (LISD) DTD. 30/09/2011.
EXHIBIT P18: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OBTAINED FROM
THE WEBSITE http:/www.universitiesintheusa.com/academic-entry-
requirements.html.
EXHIBIT P19: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN IA NUMBER 3013 OF 2013 IN
WPC.24882 OF 2011 DTD. 28/02/2013.
ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 6354/2012 DTD.15/05/2012.
ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE EXT.P9.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A): COPY OF THE INFORMATION AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE
OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF AIU AND COPY OF THE COURSE REGULATIONS OF
B.TECH DEGREEE COURSES (REVISED) WITH EFFECT FROM 2010 ADMISSIONS.
EXHIBIT R1(B): COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE B.TECH COURSE
REGULATION AND COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 09/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY DIRECTING THE PRINCIPALS OF AFFILIATED COLLEGES TO
ADHERE TO THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA BEFORE ADMITTING CANDIDATES.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011
======================
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a student, who has been pursuing studies in the 2nd respondent college for the last three years on the strength of orders issued by this Court in the above Writ Petition. The petitioner has been admitted to the B.Tech Mechanical Engineering course, conducted by the 2nd respondent, in the Non-Resident Indian Quota under a self-financing scheme, which does not mandate the petitioner to appear for an Entrance Examination and get alloted on merit, to a particular Engineering College. The petitioner was admitted by the Management of the 2nd respondent college, in the B.Tech course, commencing in the academic year 2011-2012. The 2nd respondent college is affiliated to the respondent University.
2. The petitioner admittedly has completed his school education from United States of America (U.S.A); which he W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 2 claims is equivalent to the Higher Secondary qualification in India. On seeking eligibility, the same was declined by Ext.P8, which was initially challenged. The subsequent decision of the Academic Council, Ext.P16 has been challenged in the above Writ Petition by way of an amendment.
3. The petitioner admittedly completed his 9th standard from a school within the District of Ernakulam and then pursued his studies at one Hebron High School, Texas. Going by Ext.P6 certificate, the petitioner completed three academic years, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, in USA, which according to him is recognized as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Examinations conducted by the C.B.S.E, I.C.S.E, V.H.S.E or the State Board. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P7 certificate issued by the Cochin University of Science and Technology, Exts.P11 and P12 issued by the respondent University, Ext.P13 issued by the W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 3 University of Kerala and Ext.P14 issued by the University of Calicut, to contend that, the petitioners qualification obtained from the Hebron High School is equivalent to the Higher Secondary qualification granted by the Boards mentioned above, within the State of Kerala.
4. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, would contend that, the petitioner has studied, all the subjects required in the course, undertaken in the respective academic years of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; as has been stipulated in the Higher Secondary course imparted within the State; by any of the Boards mentioned above. The petitioner has also obtained the percentage of marks, as has been indicated in the certificate, which would eminently enable the petitioner to get admission to the B.Tech course. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would also contend that, going by the present prospectus and system of admission to Engineering W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 4 Colleges, taking into account, the reservations granted to certain communities; students who have range of marks between 40% to 100% are found to be eligible to carry on a professional course in Engineering, within the State. In such circumstance, the insistence of the University that 50% minimum in Mathematics, and 50% aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as the minimum eligibility criteria; would only result in absurd consequences, is the argument.
5. The petitioner in the present case, has obtained eligibility certificates, from the University of Kerala and University of Calicut, which are produced as Exts. P13 and P14. The refusal to issue a similar certificate from the respondent University smacks off arbitrariness, is the contention urged. The fact that the very same courses were granted eligibility in the earlier years by the respondent University itself, evident from Exts.P11 and P12; results in W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 5 discriminatory treatment; asserts the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel also relies on an unreporteded judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11854 of 2005 dated 11.07.2006 to contend that, in similar circumstances, this Court has taken a view that the recognition or equivalence issued from any of the University would suffice in the matter of admissions to courses carried on by any other University, within the State of Kerala.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the University however, contends that, there is absolutely no device, by which the percentage of the student could be deciphered from Ext.P6 'course list'. The stipulation of the University is that, for admission to a professional graduate course in Engineering, a candidate has to obtain 50% marks in the subject of Mathematics as also an aggregate of 50% in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. This is evidenced from the course regulations of the University, as W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 6 also the prospectus issued by the Government. Ext.P8 dated 31.08.2011 specifically declines eligibility for the aforesaid reason. Subsequently, the petitioner by I.A No.3013 of 2013, sought for a direction to consider the petitioner's eligibility to pursue the Engineering Degree Course, in view of a certificate (Ext.P9) issued by the Association of Indian Universities. This Court by order dated 28.02.2013 recorded the submission of the University that the matter would be placed before the Academic Council. The Academic Council too rejected the claim by Ext.P16.
7. The petitioner in any event, was admitted to the B.Tech course and has been continuing thereon while he was pursuing the equivalence before the University. Ext.P16 declined such equivalence on the following grounds.
Opinions were sought from subject experts regarding the matter. The Convener, Core-
Committee for Engineering (UG) observed that the W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 7 candidate studied all the three subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics only for one year. The Ex-Dean, Faculty of Engineering & Technology opined that the Academic Transcript of the Diploma Course shows that when Physics was taught in one year, Chemistry was not part of that year and vice- versa. In Mathematics, only a small portion ie., Algebra and Models were taught and hence the diploma course passed by Sri. George Varghese John is not equivalent to the Higher Secondary Examination recognized by this University for the purpose of admission to B.Tech course.
8. Ext.P6 course list, indicates that the petitioner has undergone the study of Chemistry and Physics, each, in only one of the years, out of the two academic years between 2009-2011. The education imparted in Mathematics also is grossly insufficient, according to the University, insofar as the petitioner has undergone the course in Algebra and Mathematical Models alone, in the two years. It was in such circumstance that, Ext.P16 has been issued; by which the Academic Council after consideration of the academic transcripts of the qualification acquired by the petitioner; has arrived at a decision to decline equivalence. It is also contended that, the Association of Indian Universities is not W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 8 a Statutory Body and the recognition or equivalence to qualifications and degrees granted by the said association would, not at all bind the respondent University.
9. Primarily, it has to be noticed that even at the time of admission, in the course, commencing from 2011-2012, the petitioner had sought for an eligibility certificate from the respondent University, which was declined as per Ext.P8 dated 31.08.2011. In Ext.P8, it was indicated that on verification of the certificates, the candidate had not studied in the subjects viz., Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in both grade XI and XII and it is not decipherable as to whether the candidate has the essential eligibility of 50% in Mathematics separately and 50% aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. Subsequently on this Court's directions, the matter was placed before the Academic Council, which declined the equivalency by Ext.P16, which has also been challenged by W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 9 way of an amendment, as noticed above.
10. The Association of Indian Universities as has been stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, has no statutory status or character and the recognition granted by it, also, hence has no statutory backing. The 1st respondent University is not statutorily bound to recognize the degrees or qualifications, which are treated to be equivalent by the Association of Indian Universities.
11. Further, even going by Ext.P9 issued by the Association of Indian Universities, a High School diploma from an accredited school in USA is included in one of the 12 foreign examinations, recognized by the Association of Indian Universities. The subject wise eligibility has been specified in Ext.P9 itself, as; subject to verification by the admission giving University/Institute. The 'Note' below the formalities for issuance of equivalency certificate, in Ext.P15 also indicates that, the outside programmes should W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 10 include the study of Physics, Chemistry and Biology/ Mathematics respectively and English in grades XI and XII. The 'Note' is extracted hereunder.
Note: Candidates seeking admission to Medical/Engineering programmes must have studied the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Mathematics respectively and English in Grades 11 & 12.
This prescription is in consonance with the specification of the University as is indicated in the Course Regulations, produced as EXt.R1(a), along with the counter affidavit of the University dated 26.10.2013.
12. The petitioner's contention regarding discrimination, is based on Exts.P11 and P12 certifications made by the respondent University itself, wherein, it is alleged that, a similar course was treated as equivalent to the Pre-degree examination of the respondent University. Similar is the ground raised on arbitrariness referring to the certificates issued by the other Universities within the State of Kerala itself. With respect to the eligibility certificate W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 11 issued by the respondent University itself,it has a contention that there were certain discrepancies in the admissions carried on in the various colleges, affiliated to the University, in the earlier years and it was to stop such practices that Ext.R1(b), was issued on 09.11.2006. Ext.R1
(b) has been communicated to the Principals of all the colleges and without an eqivalency/ eligibility certificate; if any candidate possessing degree from an outside University is admitted, the responsibility arising out of such admission has been cast specifically on the Principal of the College. It is the contention of the University that, hence, there can be no ground of discrimination; placing reliance on Exts.P11 and P12, which were issued prior to Ext.R1(b).
13. Significantly Exts. P11 & P12 refers to Maryland High School Diploma, conducted by Board of Examinations of Howard County at Mt.Hebron High School, Maryland. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the Diploma W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 12 obtained by the petitioner, is similar to that referred to in Exts. P11 & P12. The school referred to therein is also not identical and only has the common name 'Hebron'.
14. Exts.P13 & P14 however is with respect to the petitioner himself. The said eligibility certificates', merely certifies the eligibility of the High School diploma holder to seek for admission to higher studies in those Universities. That is not to say that a candidate on acquiring such diploma could absolve himself from satisfying the minimum eligibility requirements stipulated by the University, viz:
50% minimum marks and the course syllabi in both years (grades) including Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. In fact Ext.P13, specifically states otherwise, by specific reference to the conditions stipulated by the University Regulations for admission to the course. Even on the said University is the petitioner would have to satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement for admission to W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 13 professional courses.
15. The certificates issued by the various Universities, refer to equivalence with the Pre-degree Examination or the Higher Secondary Examination carried on within the State and none of the certificates make a candidate eligible for seeking admission to a professional course, only on such equivalence being granted. The certificates, though treating the course as equivalent, to that carried on by the Universities or the respective Boards; specifically provide that admissions to a particular course, would depend upon the conditions stipulated by the respective regulations. In the present case, evidently, the admission regulation stipulated by the University, as also the prospectus issued by the Government, specifically indicates the eligibility condition to be 50% marks in Mathematics and 50% aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. As has been rightly pointed out by the University; from Ext.P6, it is W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 14 not decipherable as to what was the percentage obtained by the candidate in each of the subjects. But for referring to the grades and credits, it is not clear whether the petitioner has obtained the minimum required percentage, in the respective subjects.
16. It is relevant that mere equivalence may not entitle the petitioner, to seek admission to the professional course, for which minimum eligibility conditions are prescribed by the Course Regulations issued by the University and the prospectus issued by the Government. One cannot confuse equivalence with eligibility. While the Diploma of the petitioner may be equivalent to the Higher Secondary course imparted within India, the minimum percentage required by the University and the syllabi of the course may not entitle the petitioner to be admitted to the B.Tech course. It is such stipulation that has been looked into by the Academic Council while issuing Ext.P16 order. W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 15
17. The Academic Council has looked into the details produced by the petitioner with respect to the qualification obtained from the foreign Country and found that there is no evidence to show that, the candidate had studied all the three subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in both the years. Physics evidently was taught only in one year and Chemistry in another year and only a small portion of Mathematics ie., Algebra and Mathematical Models were taught in the entire course undertaken by the petitioner.
18. The decision pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, does not apply, because this Court in the cited case, was dealing with an instance were the Commissioner for Entrance Examination had made the allotment on the basis of the prospectus issued by the State. The said prospectus had a stipulation for recognition of qualifications by any of the Universities. The mere allotment to a particular University, cannot deny the candidate W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 16 eligibility to continue in the course, was the finding rendered therein. In the present case, it has to be noticed that the petitioner has not secured the admission, on the basis of an allotment by the State or by the University. The petitioner has been admitted in the Management Quota, without any examination being conducted to assess the eligibility of the petitioner, to sit for the professional course of Engineering and to continue the same.
19. The prescription of lesser marks with respect to candidates coming from the marginalized communities, also cannot be a ground to permit the petitioner to continue. The affirmative action of reservation, as prescribed by the Constitution, cannot enable the petitioner to raise a ground of discrimination as against those candidates who are permitted relaxation, in the matter of admission to professional courses. The petitioner obviously does not fall under or belong to any communities for which reservation is W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 17 prescribed. The Writ Petition hence is devoid of merit.
20. The matter was heard and dismissed by oral judgment dated 31.03.2014 and again was posted as ' to be spoken to', since this Court wanted more materials to decide on the question of eligibility. This Court was also considerably swayed by the fact that the petitioner had been continuing in the course for five semesters. The petitioner then filed an additional affidavit dated 09.04.2014. The University was also directed to produce the mark list of the candidate who appeared in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th semester examinations conducted by the University; under orders issued by this Court. The petitioner has reiterated his eligibility to pursue the course in Engineering and has also asserted that the eligibility having been achieved, the course completion would depend on the work put in by the student. This Court does not intend to analyze the eligibility standards prescribed in the U.S.A, W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 18 pleaded in the additional affidavit. Suffice it to say that, in paragraph 6, the student admits that in the U.S.A, a candidate for a professional course would have to undergo one or more 'standardized tests' for admission to college or Universities.
21. This Court is not expected to embark upon a comparative evaluation of the standards prescribed by American Universities and Indian Universities. Whether one falls short or the other is superior is not the scope of enquiry herein. Whether the petitioner satisfies the minimum eligibility conditions for admission to the professional course is the scope of enquiry. The respondent University contends that the petitioner cannot be considered to have the essential eligibility condition, since the percentage of marks is not decipherable and the petitioner having not taken the essential subjects in both the years. The petitioner contends that the grading is out of W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 19 100 and the marks obtained by him would make him eligible.
22. Essentially the challenge in the Writ Petition is against Exts.P8 and P16. Ext. P8 declines eligibility, on the finding that the petitioner having not studied Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in grade XI and XII ie: each in both the years. Ext.P16 decision was arrived at after seeking opinion from subject experts. According to the subject expert the Academic Transcript of the Diploma Course falls short of the eligibility conditions prescribed by the University for being eligible to take the professional course in Engineering under the University. The reasons cited for arriving at the decision is that the petitioner has studied Physics and Chemistry; each for only one year and that the curriculum for Mathematics includes only a small segment of the subject; being Algebra and Models. Eligibility to pursue B.Tech in the University was declined W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 20 finding the diploma course undertaken by the petitioner to be deficient in equipping a student to take up the Engineering Course.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in a number of decisions, considered the question of eligibility and the principles of equity, in directing continuance in a course even when the candidate does not fulfil the eligibility criteria, but only, when such action has been in consequence of a default on the part of the University. In Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University [(1976) 1 SCC 311] the University had issued admission card to a student to appear in Part I Law examination and the admission was challenged only at the time of Part II of the Law examination, that too on a ground that the candidate, who was employed under the Government, had not produced a Consent Certificate from his employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that such a stipulation was W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 21 not in existence and also held that it was the duty of the College as also the University to scrutinise the papers as to the threshold requirement and no subsequent cancellation can be made on the ground of non-fulfilment of requirements.
24. Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University [(1990) 3 SCC 23] was a case in which the candidate was admitted by the Law College and the University and also permitted to appear for pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations. The College and the University were held to be estopped from refusing to declare the results of the examination on the ground of his ineligibility for admission to the Law course.
25. Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 610] was a case in which the appellant-University had recognized the regular courses and the correspondence courses in M.A. conducted by W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 22 Annamalai University; but, however, had declined such recognition to M.A. (OUS) Course through Distance Education [Open University System]. It was held so in paragraphs 15 and 16:
15. The first respondent has passed his MA (OUS) from Annamalai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that the appellant University has recognised MA (English) (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to MA of appellant University. Thus, it has to be held that the first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant University for admission to the three year law course.
16. The first respondent made a faint attempt to contend that the distance education system includes "correspondence courses" and therefore, recognition of MA (correspondence course) as equivalent to MA course of the W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 23 appellant University would amount to recognition of MA, OUS (distance education) course, as an equivalent. For this purpose, he relied upon the definition of "distance education system" in Section 2(e) of the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985. But there is nothing to show that Annamalai University has treated correspondence course and OUS (distance education) course as the same. What is more important is that the appellant University does not wish to treat the correspondence course and distance education course as being the same. That is a matter of policy. Courts will not interfere with the said policy relating to an academic matter".
26. It is to be specifically noticed that in Gurunanak University (supra), despite the above finding, the respondent therein was permitted to continue the course on the peculiar facts of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the fact that the student was admitted through a common entrance test and was allowed to write the 1st Semester Examination and the student was not guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation. The petitioner's W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 24 admission and continuance was due to some confusion in the University itself, as to the recognition of the course. The cancellation of his admission, after the 1st Semester Examination was challenged before the High Court successfully. The Supreme Court was dealing with the appeal after four years when the candidate had completed the course. In that circumstance, it was held to be unfair and unjust to deny the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and recognized by the appellant-University. Hence; only if the University is at default in scrutinising the eligibility criteria and the student was allowed to pursue a course by reason only of such default; could the principles of equity be extended to overreach the regulations brought in by a competent Accademic Body.
27. In the instant case the University had declined eligibility at the threshold itself and the petitioner was W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 25 continuing in the course only by virtue of the orders passed by this Court. The petitioner was permitted to appear for the examinations conducted in the first four semesters, provisionally, again, by this Court. It is in such circumstance, this Court, directed the University to produce the mark lists of the examinations the petitioner appeared for. This has been produced in a sealed cover. On a perusal of the mark list, this Court is further inclined to find justification in the decision of the University that the diploma acquired by the petitioner is insufficient to equip him for the advanced professional course in Engineering under the University. Suffice it to say that the continuance of the petitioner in the B.Tech course, provisionally or regularly, would not enure to his benefit. The sooner the petitioner is relieved from the yoke of the B.Tech course, the earlier he could find his life and vocation in pastures; better equipped for him, to graze in.
W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 26
28. The University has found that the petitioner is not eligible to carry on his studies in the professional graduate course by Ext.P8 and also declined equivalency to the diploma acquired by him to the Higher Secondary course offered within the Country. The reliance placed on the recognition of the Association of Indian Universities is of no avail, since it is not binding on the University and in any event the "Note" extracted herein above is in consonance with the Course Regulations brought out by the University. Ext.P16 issued by the Academic Council cannot be interfered with merely on assumptions and surmises. Exts.P8 and P16 are found to be not liable to be interferred with. This Court sitting in this extra ordinary jurisdiction, cannot lightly overturn the decision of a competent Academic Body; on a comparitive evaluation of course syllabi and find eligibility where such Body declines it. This Court lacks the expertise, so to do and is without the power W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2011 27 to superimpose its own reasoning in the circumscribed jurisdiction of judicial review. Equity too, cannot be employed to totally efface academic regulations, prescribing minimum eligibility. For all the above reasons the Writ Petition is found to be devoid of merit and hence stands dismissed leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB