Jackson Das T vs The Vice Chancellor on 18 February, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Jackson Das T vs The Vice Chancellor on 18 February, 2025

The appellant who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3664 of 2023 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 11.12.2024 passed in this writ petition whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere in the decisions of the respondents regarding the validity of the BA degree obtained by the appellant from Dr.C.V.Raman University, Bilaspur.

2. The facts that can be discernible from the records are as follows;

The appellant obtained B.A (History) Degree from Dr.C.V.Raman University, Bilaspur after successfully completing the degree programme conducted through private mode during 2016-2019 and secured an aggregate mark of 68.8%. The appellant obtained admission for three-year LLB Course (Evening Batch) at the School of Legal Studies under the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). He appeared for 1st semester 4 W.A.No.148 of 2025 2025:KER:13319 University examination in May 2022. On 14.10.2022, the 3rd respondent Controller of Examinations issued Ext.P4 letter to the Director of School of Legal Studies, CUSAT stating that the degree of the appellant conferred by Dr.C.V.Raman University does not have the approval of the University Grants Commission ('UGC' for short) and requesting him to initiate urgent steps to terminate the admission given to the appellant. The result of the 1st semester examination of the appellant was withheld by the University citing the same reason. The Director of School of Legal Studies then issued Ext.P5 letter dated 18.10.2022 requiring the appellant to show cause why the admission given to the appellant to the LLB degree programme shall not be terminated. The appellant thereafter made a request to the 2nd respondent Registrar of CUSAT to recognize the course undergone by him. But, by Ext.P7 letter dated 09.12.2022, the 3rd respondent Controller of Examinations informed the appellant that his application for recognition of qualifying degree cannot be considered, since Dr.C.V.Raman University was not given approval by the distance 5 W.A.No.148 of 2025 2025:KER:13319 education bureau of UGC to conduct Bachelor of Arts programme during the academic year 2016-2017.

2.1. According to the appellant, Dr.C.V.Raman University, Bilaspur is a UGC recognised private University entitled to run courses through private/distance mode from 2013 onwards. Though the appellant submitted repeated representations before the 2nd respondent explaining all the backgrounds of his course details, he was not allowed to appear in the examination scheduled from 15.11.2022. The appellant then filed W.P.(C) No.36444 of 2022 before this Court and an interim order was passed in that writ petition directing the respondents to permit him to appear for the examination subject to the result of the writ petition. The said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant with the permission of the court to file a fresh petition with appropriate grounds and prayers. The appellant received Ext.P9 letter from the 4th respondent stating that the degree course studied by him was conducted as per the decision of the Academic Council of Dr.C.V.Raman University and it has got 6 W.A.No.148 of 2025 2025:KER:13319 jurisdiction to issue specific degree under Section 22 of the UGC Act, 2008. When the 3rd semester examination was declared by the CUSAT by Ext.P11 schedule of examination, the appellant approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C)No.3664 of 2023, seeking the following reliefs;

"i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to call for the records leading to Ext.P7 and quash the same.

ii)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner for the examinations scheduled as per Ext.P11.

iii)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the respondents 1 to

3 to permit the petitioner to appear in the classes and further to declare the examination result of the completed semesters.

iv)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 4 to 6 to declare the validity of Ext.P10 certificate of the petitioner.

v)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to continue the course." 7

W.A.No.148 of 2025 2025:KER:13319 2.2. The 6th respondent UGC filed counter affidavit in the writ petition producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(l) documents and contended that Dr.C.V.Raman University, Bilaspur is not authorised to open study centre/off campus centre beyond the State. The private universities cannot affiliate any college or institution for conducting courses leading to award of its diplomas or degrees. It is stated in the counter affidavit that as per Ext.R6(b), the UGC accorded recognition to the university to offer 23 programmes through distance education mode. The B.A (History) Degree course to which the appellant joined was not given recognition by UGC and hence, the degree obtained by the appellant is not valid. After considering the rival contentions and the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as stated above.

3 Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for CUSAT and the learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent UGC.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued 8 W.A.No.148 of 2025 2025:KER:13319 that the appellant had obtained admission for three year LLB course at School of Legal Studies, CUSAT after following all the procedural formalities and he is not responsible for the non- recognition of the course that he completed at Dr.C.V.Raman University, Bilaspur. As per Ext.R6(c) communication, the UGC permitted Dr.C.V.Raman University to continue programmes in open and distance learning mode for the academic year 2015- 2016. The appellant secured 68.8% marks in B.A Degree examination and he has successfully attended the semester examination of three-year LLB conducted by CUSAT, till date on the strength of the interim orders granted by this Court. By relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sanathan Gauda v. Berhampur University [(1990) 3 SCC 23], the learned Senior Counsel argued that since the appellant satisfies other qualifications and was duly admitted to the law course, he is entitled for the reliefs in the writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel, further, by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal 9 W.A.No.148 of 2025 2025:KER:13319 [(2009) 1 SCC 610], argued that the appellant was not informed at the time of admission to the LLB course that he was not eligible for admission and hence it is unfair and unjust to deny him the benefit of the admission to the course.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 argued that as per Ext.R1(b) communication dated 27.08.2013, from UGC to the Vice Chancellor of Dr.C.V.Raman University, it is clear that permission was not granted by the UGC to conduct B.A course in open and distance learning system in that University. As per Ext.R1(c), it was made clear that for the academic year 2015-16 Dr.C.V.Raman University was permitted to continue the courses mentioned in Ext.R1(b) communication alone. As per Ext.P4 communication dated 14.10.2022, the Controller of Examinations, CUSAT requested the Director of School of Legal Studies, CUSAT to terminate the admission given to the appellant as well as to another student since the qualifying degree taken by them from the respective Universities were not recognized by the UGC. The facts of 10 W.A.No.148 of 2025 2025:KER:13319 Sanathan Gauda [(1990) 3 SCC 23] and Sanjay Kumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 610] are not similar to the instant case and hence the judgments in those cases are not applicable to the facts of the case in our hand.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for UGC submitted that as per Ext.R6(c), the UGC has not granted permission to Dr.C.V.Raman University to conduct B.A degree course for the academic year 2015-2016 and hence, the appellant is not entitled for the reliefs.

7. Ext.P1 is the provisional certificate issued to the appellant from Dr.C.V.Raman University showing his successful completion of Bachelor of Arts Degree in the examination held in July 2018-June 2019. Ext.P2 is the temporary identity card issued to him from School of Legal Studies, CUSAT after his admission for three-year LLB course. According to the 2nd respondent, admission to the three-year LLB course was given to the appellant purely on a provisional basis, subject to the completion of the procedure of recognition of his qualifying degree. The appellant 11 W.A.No.148 of 2025 2025:KER:13319 submitted application for recognition of qualifying degree only on 26.08.2022. As per Ext.P4 communication, the Controller of Examinations informed the Director of School of Legal Studies CUSAT that the qualifying degree obtained by the appellant was the one not approved by the UGC through distance/private mode.

8. From Ext.R1(b) communication issued by the UGC to the Vice-Chancellor of Dr.C.V.Raman University it is evident that Dr.C.V.Raman University was not permitted to offer B.A degree course from the academic year 2013-2014. As per Ext.R1(c) communication dated 06.01.2016 issued by UGC to the Vice- Chancellor, it was decided to maintain status quo on recognition of the programmes. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of joining and completing of the degree by the appellant, it was not approved by the UGC. The appellant was provisionally admitted for three- year LLB course by the School of Legal Studies, CUSAT. If he could not prove recognition of the qualifying degree, naturally his admission will not be confirmed by the University.

9. In Sanathan Gauda [(1990) 3 SCC 23] the UGC had 12 W.A.No.148 of 2025 2025:KER:13319 permitted the University to conduct the qualifying degree programme. The reason for objection raised against the admission secured by the student in that case was non-securing of minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying degree by him. In Sanjay Kumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 610] the student who got admission for LLB course in the appellant University had Master's degree. The dispute in that case pertaining to his qualifying degree for getting admission to LLB course. But considering the fact that Master's degree also notified as one of the qualifications for the admission to LLB course, the Apex Court ruled in favour of the student. But in the instant case, the degree obtained by the appellant itself was not recognized by the UGC. Hence, the judgments in Sanathan Gauda [(1990) 3 SCC 23] and Sanjay Kumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 610] are not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

10. As said above, the appellant had obtained only provisional admission for three-year LLB course in School of Legal Studies, CUSAT with the qualifying degree which was not approved 13 W.A.No.148 of 2025 2025:KER:13319 by the UGC. When UGC did not recognize the degree, the CUSAT was justified in not accepting the degree for admission to their LLB course, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE scl

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court