Kerala High Court
Sheeba C.V. (Sr.Sharon). Aged 34 Years vs The University Of Kerala
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/29TH KARTHIKA, 1935
WP(C).No. 8636 of 2012 (D)
------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
SHEEBA C.V. (SR.SHARON). AGED 34 YEARS
D/O. C.C.VARGHESE, HOLY TRINITY CONVENT, P.O.KOLAZHY
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.K.E.HAMZA
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.
3. THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
KARYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581.
R1 TO R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 8636 of 2012 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RANK CERTIFICATE DTD.8.9.2010.
EXHIBIT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE DTD.19.3.2011.
EXHIBIT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NET DTD.3.1.2012.
EXHIBIT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SET DATED NIL THROUGH WEB-
SITE.
EXHIBIT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN RECEIPT DTD.23.11.2011.
EXHIBIT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE
DTD.23.11.2011.
EXHIBIT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DTD.31.1.2012.
EXHIBIT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.6.2.2012.
EXHIBIT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DTD.17.2.2012.
EXHIBIT: P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.
4754/2012-T DTD.27.2.2012.
EXHIBIT: P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR
DTD.20.3.2012.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE UNIVERSITY DATED
8.2.2013
EXHIBIT. P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 37218/2009 DATED
22.3.2011
EXHIBIT. P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALICUT DATED 8.5.2012
EXHIBIT. P17 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
DATED 27.8.2010
EXHIBIT. P18 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2005 (1) KLT 680 DATED
17.12.2004
EXHIBIT. P19 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2006(1) KLT 846 DATED
16.1.2006
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2011 (3) KLT 181 DATED
27.6.2011
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
SB
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------
W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012
-----------------------------------------
Dated, this the 20th day of November, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a nun, who has excelled in her subject of study. The petitioner is a member of a Christian Monastery, having forsaken her material life, which, probably resulted in her not being able to pursue a normal course of study. The petitioner hence joined for the Liberalised Scheme under the University of Calicut for graduate studies in Malayam; her chosen subject. As is evidenced by Ext. P1, the petitioner came out in flying colours obtaining first class and first rank in the graduate examinations. The petitioner then, under the same University, completed her Master's Degree as a private student and again obtained first class and first rank. The petitioner has also obtained eligibility to be employed as a lecturer under the National Eligibility Test conducted by the University Grants Commission and State Eligibility Test conducted by the Center for Science and Technology, as is evidenced by Exts. P3 and P4. W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 2 :
2. The dispute raised in the present Writ Petition is with respect to the admission she sought and obtained for the M.Phil course in the Kerala University, which was granted by the University and then later cancelled. The petitioner having applied for the Entrance Examination of the University of Kerala for admission to the M.Phil course in the year 2011-2012, again came out as first rank holder. However, while attending the interview, she was instructed to obtain an eligibility certificate insofar as her Post Graduate qualification is concerned, since the same was from another University, viz. the University of Calicut. The petitioner applied for the same by Ext. P5 dated 23.11.2011.
3. Admittedly, she was admitted to the M.Phil course on 30.11.2011. The Head of the Department of Malayalam, University of Kerala, also recommended favourable consideration of her application, definitely swayed by the excellent credentials she had throughout her academic career. W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 3 : However, later on the petitioner having not produced the eligibility certificate, as per the Regulations of the University, the very same Head of the Department cancelled her admission by Ext. P8. The petitioner was before this Court seeking consideration of her case by the Vice Chancellor, which was directed by Ext. P11. The Vice Chancellor by a detailed order, rejected her claim, which is assailed in the present Writ Petition.
4. Sri. V.A. Muhammed, counsel for the petitioner mainly banks on the credentials of the student, to contend that the continuance of the petitioner in the M.Phil course ought to be regularised by this Court and the University be directed to publish the results. I have also heard Sri. George Poonthottam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent who opposes the said prayer placing reliance on the Regulations as also decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it had been specifically directed that regularization of W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 4 : admissions to courses shall not be granted to unqualified persons, merely based on sympathy. The learned standing counsel also brings to the notice of this Court that, the M.Phil course being one, which would entitle the person who was qualified to go for higher studies in the subject as also apply for academic positions, a strict look at the norms should be the basis on which a candidate is allowed to be admitted and continued in a course, especially one granting a Post Graduate degree.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner has excellent credentials, in her chosen branch of studies, which was also taken note of by the Head of the Department of the University. Definitely, that alone, as submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondent cannot be the criteria on which this Court can issue directions. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in Mujeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala in [2005 (1) KLT 680] / in State of Kerala v. Suja Kumari in [2006 (1) KLT 846] W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 5 : and State of Kerala v.Thulasibai in [2011 (3) KLT 181]. In all the aforesaid decisions, the issue was whether there can be a distinction drawn on a Post Graduate degree which had been obtained through regular course of study and through distance education. The Division Benches of this Court had consistently found that there can be no such distinction as long as the Post Graduate Degree is awarded. But, the said decisions were with respect to the claim for employment which were rejected on the basis of the Post Graduate Degree having been obtained through distance education.
6. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another [(2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 610] the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that equivalence is a technical academic matter, to be decided by the academic body of a University and declared by a specific order or Resolution duly published. Therein the submission of the University was that, while it recognised the regular and W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 6 : correspondence courses in M.A conducted by the Annamalai University as equivalent to the Post Graduate course of the appellant University, it took strong exception to the M.A Degree awarded through Open University Scheme. This was held to be a policy decision relating to an academic matter, which the Courts would be loath to interfere with.
7. Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government [(2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 590] was relied upon to indicate the UGC Regulations which mandates that for award of first degree; a student ought to have successfully completed +2 course through an examination conducted by a Board or University and relaxation is only applicable to those persons, who had passed an entrance test conducted by the University after the candidate has attained the age of 21 years. In the present case, it is the contention of the University that the graduate degree obtained by the petitioner is not one in accordance with the said UGC Regulations as also W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 7 : the Regulations relating to recognition of Examinations Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and Titles of other Universities or Authorities framed by the University. The said Regulations specifically by Clause 16, provides so.
"Unless otherwise specified, Degrees / Examinations of other Universities means the Degree / Examination awarded/passed after having undergone the prescribed course of instruction by the duly recognised, regular / correspondence/private study not less than 10+2(12)/10+2+3(15/10+2+3+2 (17) years of study pattern in Board/University other than the University of Kerala".
8. The petitioner, who has not obtained degree through 10+2+3 stream would not, definitely, have been entitled to be admitted to the first degree in the Kerala University and likewise would have been disentitiled from admittance to a Post Graduate Degree for reason of she having not completed the 10+2+3 regular stream. Further, for advanced studies, like M.Phil, also, it is provided that the candidate ought to have completed the regular W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 8 : course under the 10+2+3+2 stream of study. The petitioner hence is demonstrably disentitled, is the argument of the University.
9. In the present case, the petitioner was obviously admitted to the M.Phil course after passing an Entrance Examination wherein she qualified with the first rank. Only at the time of interview, she was asked to get an eligibility certificate, but even at that stage, she was not declined admission on the ground of she having not undergone the 10+2+3+2 regular stream of study. Obviously, the eligibility certificate was asked for by the Board on a scrutiny of the application and the certificates of the petitioner. It would necessarily have come to the notice of the Interview Board that the petitioner had not obtained degree through a regular stream and had obtained the same through a Liberalised Stream of the Calicut University. But, however, no objection was raised at that point of time and pending an eligibility certificate, with respect to her Post Graduate Degree, W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 9 : obtained from the Calicut University, she was admitted to the course. As was noticed earlier, the Head of the Department had also recommended her case to be favourably considered after about her having undergone 3 months of the course of study under the said Head of the Department.
10. Eventually, her admission was cancelled for reason of her having failed to produce the eligibility certificate on 06.02.2012. It is pertinent that, this was done when the petitioner had made an application to the University of Kerala as early as on 23.11.2011 ie., even before her admission on 30.11.2011 for an eligibility certificate with respect to her Post Graduate Degree obtained from the Calicut University. Even while issuing Ext. P8, the cancellation of her appointment, the University did not caution the petitioner as to the objection with respect to her having not obtained a Higher Secondary Certificate or Per-Degree under the +2 stream. It was only after the petitioner W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 10 : approached this Court and obtained a direction by way of Ext. P11 Judgment, that the Vice-Chancellor raised the said objection. By that time, the petitioner had completed almost 6 months in the course, which had a total duration of only one year.
11. It was the Vice-Chancellor, for the first time by Ext. P12, who found that the petitioner's graduate degree being under the Open Liberalised Scheme, without undergoing Pre-degree or +2 or equivalent stream recognised by the Kerala University; is disentitiled from continuing in the M.Phil degree course. It is pertinent that, the prospectus in Ext. P17 provided only that the minimum qualification for admission to the M.Phil course in the Kerala University was a second class Master's Degree in the concerned subject with not less than 55% marks. That the petitioner admittedly satisfies. Though, it is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that Ext. P17, is for the academic year 2010-2011; it is to be noticed W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 11 : that the University does not have a case, that the same was changed in the subsequent years or the eligibility criteria for 2013 - 2014 was in any manner different from that prescribed in Ext. P17. It is also relevant that the petitioner's Master's Degree obtained from the Calicut University is treated as equivalent to that granted by the Kerala University.
12. The petitioner underwent the graduate study in the liberalised scheme and the Post Graduate study as a private candidate and appeared in the examinations along with other Graduate and Post Graduate candidates of the Calicut University, who had been admitted to the regular course or otherwise. It is after competing with such persons, who had come through a regular course of study, that the petitioner obtained first class and first rank in both the Graduate and Post Graduate studies. In the present case, it is also pertinent that the petitioner had come out first in the Entrance Examination conducted to the M.Phil W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 12 : course. The petitioner hence cannot be said to have displaced or denied the admission to any other candidate who was more meritorious than her. It is also pertinent that the University had been dragging its feet insofar as informing the petitioner about the deficiency in her qualification, with respect to her having not obtained the proper Higher Secondary certificate or Pre-degree. True, if on the basis of a Graduate Degree obtained under the liberalised scheme, the petitioner had applied for a Post Graduate admission in the Kerala University, she would have been disentitiled. But, in the instant case, the minimum qualification required for admission to the M.Phil course was a Post Graduate qualification from the Kerala University or any other Universities which Post Graduate qualification is recognised as equivalent to that awarded by the Kerala University. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Post Graduate qualification the petitioner obtained from the Calicut University is W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 13 : recognised as equivalent to that of such a degree granted by the Kerala University.
13. In Annamalai University (supra) a candidate's Post Graduate Degree granted under the Open University System, without a three year graduate degree came up for scrutiny. The appointment to the post of Principal, was the bone of contention. The essential qualifications inter alia, included a degree in Arts and Science. The M.A under the Open University System was held to be not competent. In Guru Nanak Dev University (supra) the degree under the Open University System was held to be not equivalent to the degree awarded under the regular stream. However, the respondent, who had a degree under the Open University System was found to be entitled to be continued in the LLB course, since the University was lax in intimating the disability to the student. That proposition would squarely apply here.
W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 14 :
In the circumstances, this court is persuaded to find that the petitioner's continuance in the M.Phil course can be regularised and the University directed to publish her results. The Writ Petition hence is allowed with the above directions. No costs.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE SB W.P (C) NO. 8636 of 2012 : 15 :