Kerala High Court
University Of Kerala vs University Of Kerala on 21 June, 2012
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/8TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WA.No. 1739 of 2012 () IN WPC/13749/2012
-----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.13749/2012 DATED 21-06-2012
APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 4:
------------------------------------------
1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REP.BY THE REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY, PALAYAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2. THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REP.BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR
OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY.
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT 2 AND 3:
-----------------------------------------------
1. DEEPU DEV. S, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.SAHADEVAN, N.S. BUILDING,KEEZHATTINGAL P.O.
ATTINGAL, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, PIN-695101
2. PRINCIPAL,
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,KULATHOOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695583
3. STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH
BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. GIRIJA GOPAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29-11-2012, ALONG WITH W.A. NO. 1765 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
dlk
MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ
& A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765 of 2012
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of November 2012
J U D G M E N T
MANJULA CHELLUR,CJ Heard learned counsel for appellants as well as respondents. Petitioner in W.P.C.No.13749 of 2012 and W.P.C.No.13188 of 2012 are one and the same.
2. So far as W.P.C.No.13188 of 2012, petitioner approached learned Single Judge aggrieved by the decision of the Academic Council at Ext.P13 wherein he was directed to continue his M.Tech course that is 4th semester as a part time and not as a regular student in full time course. The learned Single Judge allowed the interim application sought by the respondent/writ petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition saying that the department will allow the respondent/writ petitioner to proceed with the thesis work and he shall be allowed to mark attendance and continue the course which will be purely provisional and further subject to orders to be passed in the writ petition. This is, so far as the interim order W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765/2012 2 pertaining to permission allowing the student to study as a full time student. So far as W.P.C.No.13749/2012 is concerned, it was filed at the instance of the writ petitioner seeking quashing of Ext.P18 and also for a declaration that the writ petitioner was entitled to continue the course as a full time student.
3. The entire problem arose when the writ petitioner, who was doing M.Tech in Signal Processing in the College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram after successful three semesters got an employment with Airport Authority of India. He joined the employment and had a break in his M.Tech course. Subsequently he approached the University seeking permission to continue his M.Tech course as the balance study to complete was to submit thesis in the 4th semester under the guidance of head of the department. According to him, his employer permitted him to work in the night so that he could attend the College and Library in the morning hours in order to complete his thesis. When he was not allowed to attend the regular classes by the Principal of the College on the ground that there is no study leave certificate from the employer, he approached Lok Ayukta and Ext.P12 order came to be passed by the Lok W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765/2012 3 Ayukta. Based on this, Academic Council took a decision to allow the writ petitioner to complete his course as a part time student. This came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge in the two writ petitions that is one challenging Exts.P12 and another challenging Ext.P18 and also sought for some declaration. During the pendency, the learned Single Judge disposed of the interim application directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the thesis work. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as under:
"Admit. Learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 1 and 4 and learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 2 and 3.
2. Heard learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel for the University.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to complete the thesis work. Learned Standing Counsel for the University brought to my notice the communication issued by the Registrar of the University dated 16.6.2012 wherein it is stated that "there is no course specification for the W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765/2012 4 submission of thesis for each stream. Since the institution has been offering M.Tech programmes in other streams on part time basis, the petitioners can also do their thesis work in the same manner as is being done by candidates of other streams. The Institution or the Head of the Department has not expressed any objection in permitting the petitioners to do thesis work on part time basis. Since they have already completed the course work and have employment on regular basis, the Academic Council has permitted the petitioners to complete the thesis work on part time basis. It is also stated as follows:
"As the candidate has to complete and submit the thesis only, the institutions can grant registration to do thesis work on part time basis on a date from which he can submit the thesis and complete the programme. He can also avail the facilities in the Department.
University of Kerala offers M.Tech programmes in the Faculty of Engineering and Technology on Regular basis and on part time, ie. Evening course. M.Tech evening course of duration of seven semesters are being conducted in CET in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765/2012 5 Electronics and Communication branches. Only those candidates who have Technical/Engineering employment with a minimum of two years experience after passing the B.Tech in relevant stream can apply for M.Tech evening. Hence the Regulation of full- time course do not specify about employment."
In the light of the above, the Department will allow the petitioner to proceed with the thesis work. The petitioners will be allowed to mark the attendance and continue the course, which will be purely provisional and subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petitions."
4. Apparently, there was no challenge whatsoever by the University so far as Exts.P12 and P18 are concerned. According to learned senior counsel for the University Ext.P18 was nothing but accepting Ext.P13. Therefore, there was no need for the University to challenge the same. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, it would be necessary for us to indicate what exactly was the direction given by the learned Single Judge.
"In the light of the above, the Department will allow the petitioner to proceed with the thesis work. The petitioners will be allowed to mark the attendance and continue the course, which W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765/2012 6 will be purely provisional and subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petitions."
5. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petitioner to proceed with the thesis work. As a matter of fact, there was no resistance on the part of the appellant/university to allow the petitioner to proceed with the thesis work as a part time student. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, he must be allowed to do thesis work as a regular student/day scholar in view of the balance work being only submission of thesis.
6. According to learned senior counsel, if part time course is allowed, the number of hours to attend the classes by a student would be double than the number of hours he has to attend the full time course. According to learned counsel for respondent/writ petitioner, 4th semester is the only balance of course that is submission of thesis which has to be done under the guidance of the head of the department and they need not actually sit in the class room to hear lecture. According to him, as the employer has permitted him to do the day course by permitting him to attend the work in the night hours, he should not be objected to attend the college as a day scholar. W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765/2012 7
7. Our attention is not invited to any procedure, regulation or rules of the University saying unless a study leave certificate is produced by a student who has already in employment, the college or the University shall not allow the student to continue the course of study. If the writ petitioner is working with Airport Authority of India, if he does not mark his attendance, it is for the employer to take action against him. As long as he attend the classes in the college, in the absence of any Rules requiring the student to produce study leave certificate or consent from the employer, it may not be open for the University or the College to insist that a particular student has to attend only part time classes irrespective whether classes are there in a particular subject or not is not appreciated. However, the learned Single Judge has to look into all these aspects with reference to the rules or regulation or procedure in the University concerned while considering the matter including the course of study, hours of study and the nature of the course offered in the 4th semester.
8. Having regard to the very nature of relief sought in the writ petition, we are of the view that the direction given by W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765/2012 8 the learned Single Judge means the respondent/writ petitioner must be allowed to continue the course as full time scholar and not part time scholar. However, this decision or interim order of the learned Single Judge is subject to the result of the writ petition and we have already indicated, what, according to us, are relevant to be considered at the time of disposal of the writ petition.
9. With these observations, both the appeals are disposed of.
It is open for both parties to seek for early disposal of the writ petitions.
(sd/-) (MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr 03/12/2012 W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765/2012 9 W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765/2012 10 W.A.Nos.1739 & 1765/2012 11