Kerala High Court
Karthik Kuttan vs The Director Of Technical Education on 8 March, 2012
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/16TH MAGHA 1934
WP(C).No. 25303 of 2012 (K)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
KARTHIK KUTTAN, AGED 26 YEARS,
S/O.KUTTAN, MULLAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENGALUR (VIA),
PO NANTHIPULAM, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN
SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 505.
3. THE GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
THRISSUR, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL, CHERUR, THRISSUR 680001.
R2& R3 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERSITY
R1,R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT K T LILLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 25303 of 2012 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS PUBLISHED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT DATED 8-3-2012.
EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME OF EXAMINATIONS AND SYLLABI
PUBLISHED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED
25-07-2009.
EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATION STATEMENT OF MARKS AND
PROVISIONALLY CERTIFICATE DATED NIL.
EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION MEMO DATED 16-07-2012 SERVED ON
THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
DATED 23-07-2012.
EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT DATED 19-07-2012.
EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT
DATED 4-10-2012.
EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONERE DATEDE
8-10-2012
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
LSN
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 25303 of 2012
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2013
JUDGMENT
Eligibility to have admission to M.Tech course in 'Internal Combustion Engines and Turbo Machinery' is the subject matter of challenge.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he completed his B.Tech in 'Aeronautical Engineering' and wanted to pursue Post Graduation. An application was submitted by him in respect of the M.Tech in 'Internal Combustion Engines and Turbo Machinery' as notified in Ext.P1 prospectus for admission to PG courses in Engineering in the year 2012. It is stated that the petitioner was selected and given admission in the 3rd respondent Institution and was pursuing the studies accordingly. It was while so, that Ext. P9 notice was issued to him, doubting the eligibility and seeking to produce materials to substantiate the same; lest he should be thrown out, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition for immediate intervention.
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this W.P.C. No. 25303 of 2012 -2- Court on 30.10.2012, further action pursuant to Ext.P9 was ordered to be kept in abeyance for three weeks, which was subsequently extended from time to time. A detailed statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent University, wherein the University has stated that the petitioner is not entitled to have admission to the M.Tech Course for the reason that his B.Tech Degree in 'Aeronautical Engineering' is not an eligible course for admission to M.Tech course in 'Internal Combustion Engines and Turbo Machinery' under the University of Calicut, as notified vide Ext.P1. The Director of Technical Education, vide letter dated 22.3.2012 has categorically informed the eligibility criteria of all specializations of M.Tech courses shown in the prospectus, as approved by the Government, as per which the petitioner is not eligible for getting admission to the M.Tech course in the concerned subject.
4. After the admission given to the petitioner, in the course of steps for verification, the particulars were forwarded by the 3rd respondent and in turn, the University of Calicut examined the matter, also in the light of request made by the Director of Technical Education. The qualification notified as per Ext.P1 W.P.C. No. 25303 of 2012 -3- prospectus clearly reveals that, for pursuing the particular course of 'M.Tech - Mechanical Engineering' under the 3rd respondent Institution, in respect of 'Internal Combustion Engines and Turbo Machinery', the basic qualification prescribed is a Degree in Automobile/Mechanical/Mechanical Stream Automobile Engineering and nothing else. Admittedly, the petitioner is having a B.Tech only in the field of 'Aeronautical Engineering', which does not find an place anywhere as aforesaid in Ext.P1.
5. The matter was examined by the University as well and it was asserted before this Court that the petitioner is not having the requisite basic qualification and cannot be permitted to pursue the studies in the particular Branch. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent brought to the notice of this Court that, there is some element of suppression/misrepresentation of material facts as well, on the part of the petitioner, in so far as he has shown in the application form that he is having 'B.Tech in Mechanical Engineering' and it was based on the said entry and declaration, that the matter was pursued further, leading to the admission given to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no W.P.C. No. 25303 of 2012 -4- wilful misrepresentation was made by the petitioner and according to him, the particular Branch for the PG Degree will include 'Aeronautical Engineering' as well and that he had produced all the relevant documents including the Degree Certificate of 'Aeronautical Engineering' along with the application. The only question to be considered is, whether the petitioner is having the requisite qualification for admission; which cannot but be answered in the negative, in view of the assertion made from the part of the respondents as mentioned hereinbefore and also in view of the contents of Ext.P1 Prospectus.
In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Kp/-