Madras High Court
Savitri Viozat vs / on 15 May, 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15/05/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM
WRIT PETITION No.20668 of 2001 and WP.No. 20669 of 2001
and W.P.M.P.Nos.30511 to 30514 of 2001
Savitri Viozat Petitioner in
both cases.
/versus/
1. The Director,
Pondicherry University-
Community College,
TAC Campus,
Lawspet, Pondicherry – 605 008.
2. Pondicherry University,
represented by its Registrar,
R.V.Nagar, Kalapet,
Pondicherry – 605 014.
3. Association of Indian Universities,
represented by its Secretary General,
AIU House,
16, Kotia Marg,
New Delhi – 110 002.
4. Shivaji University,
Kolhapur,
Maharashtra – 416 004. Respondents 1 to 4 in both
cases.
5. Lycee Francais,
represented by its Principal,
12, Victor Simonel Street,
BP No.35, Pondicherry – 605 001. R.5 in WP.20669
of 2001.
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of writs of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.
For petitioners : Mr.M.Sundar
For respondents : Mr.G.Thilagavathi
:ORDER
In both writ petitions, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents in Memorandum of the first respondent dated 5.1.2001, to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to issue an equivalent certificate to the effect that the Baccalaureat first year (13 academic years) completed by the petitioner in the fifth respondent school as equivalent to higher secondary examination and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to publish the results of six semesters examinations of the petitioner in B.Sc. Bio-Chemistry course, and to call for the records of the third respondent dated 26.09.2001 and to quash the same.
2. The petitioner contends that she is an Indian citizen by domicile having born at Pondicherry on 21.04.1982. Her father is a Frenchman and her mother is Indian. She commenced schooling from the Academic year 1985-86 in the fifth respondent School which follows the French system of education. The course consists of three years of Kindergarten, 5 years of Primary and 4 years in College and 3 years in Lycee (after College). On completion of 15 academic years, a student is conferred Baccalaureat Final. The 13th, 14th and 15th academic years are referred to as Baccalaureat first year, Baccalaureat second year and Baccalaureat third year namely, Seconde, Premiere, Terminale. As the petitioner did not intend to pursue her further studies in foreign country and could not afford to do so, the petitioner left the first respondent College after completing her 13th academic year, Baccalaureat first year, with the intention of joining M.B.B.S. Course at Jipmer, Pondicherry. The petitioner was required to apply to the second respondent, Pondicherry University, for the issue of equivalent certificate with reference to Baccalaureat first year which she had passed and completed. The petitioner also remitted all necessary fees, but she has not been given equivalence certificate in spite of repeated requests and reminders. The petitioner's mother repeatedly attempted to get the certificate, but was driven from pillar to post and finally she wrote a letter on 15.6.1998 chronologically setting out the facts. Apparently, officials of the second respondent University did not relish the said letters and became hostile to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner on coming to know about the first respondent - College which was run by the second respondent - University which was started in the year 1995, the petitioner applied for a course called "Medical Bio-Chemistry" which was an associate degree and the duration of the course was two years. In the mean time, the petitioner's maternal uncle Mr.Ganesh who was in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, made enquiries and found that the fourth respondent - University recognised the Baccalaureat first year as equivalent to higher secondary examination/pre-degree examination. This information was gathered from the fourth respondent - University. The third respondent who was in existence from 1925 had published a hand book dealing with Equivalence of Foreign degrees in which the said fact was clearly stated. Therefore, the petitioner's uncle applied to the fourth respondent - University also for an equivalence certificate on 17.8.1998. The fourth respondent - University had informed that the papers were being sent to the third respondent - Association for the assessment of equivalence and a certificate will be issued after evaluation. Thereafter, the fourth respondent gave a equivalence certificate on 17.9.1998 issued by the third respondent - Association. In the said certificate it has been stated that it was issued by the third respondent - Association. It was received by the petitioner's maternal uncle on 17.9.1 998. In the mean time, the petitioner was called for counselling by the first respondent and respondents 1 and 2 after thoroughly evaluating the petitioner's certificate as well as the Course undergone by her accepted the position that she had completed 13 academic years in the fifth respondent - School which was equivalent to Pre-degree examination. The equivalence certificate dated 17.9.1998 was also subsequently accepted. The petitioner was admitted into the said Associate degree in the first respondent/College.
3. She continued her studies in B.Sc. Bio-Chemistry in the first respondent - College and completed five Semesters. She also wrote the medical entrance test conducted by the Centralised Admission Committee of Government of Pondicherry on 25.11.2000. The hall-ticket was given subject to the condition that she should produce either the equivalence certificate or get the equivalence certificate dated 17.9.1998 issued by the third respondent with due endorsement. The petitioner approached the Pondicherry University to get the endorsement. As no reply was received, the petitioner sent a copy of the said certificate dated 17.9.1998 to the third respondent - Association at New Delhi for endorsement.
4. While she was awaiting endorsement, she was shocked to get a communication dated 5.1.2001 from the first respondent - College stating that the admission into B.Sc. Bio-Chemistry was treated as cancelled with immediate effect. The petitioner learnt from the third respondent that the equivalence certificate dated 17.9.1998 was not issued by them and that they came to know of the same only when the petitioner had sent the equivalence certificate for endorsement. This has resulted in the order of the first respondent cancelling the petitioner' s admission. The petitioner's mother went over to the fourth respondent- University personally on 17.2.2001 and gave a detailed letter setting out all the facts and circumstances and also requested detailed evaluation. The fourth respondent gave a reply on 17.2.2001 stating that they have to check their records.
5. It is further stated that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before cancelling her admission and hence, she filed W.P.No.1243 of 2001 questioning the cancellation. The first respondent had instructed her to withdraw the writ petition, after assuring that, the second respondent University will do the needful and regularise her admission into B.Sc. Bio-Chemistry. Believing the same, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition on 31.1.2001 without prejudice to her rights. But as nothing happened in spite of repeated requests and in spite of recommendations of the Director of the first respondent - College to consider the petitioner's claim favourably, she filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5743 of 2001 assailing the order of cancellation on 5.1.2001. The said writ petition was admitted and an interim order of stay was granted on 30.3.2001. The petitioner subsequently wrote her examinations in B.Sc. Bio-Chemistry cours e by order dated 18.6.20 01. This Court directed first and second respondents to return all the original certificates to the petitioner and the respondent - Association was directed to provide all opportunity to the petitioner before reaching a final conclusion about the genuineness of the equivalence certificate dated 17.9.1998.
6. In spite of the said directions, there was no response even though letters were addressed on 27.6.2001 and 23.7.2001. The petitioner received a communication dated 27.7.2001 which according to the petitioner was in flagrant violation of the order of this Court dated 18.6.2001. While this Court directed opportunity to be given to the petitioner to furnish proper materials, without affording such opportunity, the respondent took a decision to reject the claim of the petitioner. The respondent - Association had prejudged the issue and had sent a communication dated 26.9.2001 repeating verbatim what has been stated earlier, namely, the equivalence certificate was not issued by them. The petitioner has also stated certain details relating to the constitution of the Committee of the third respondent and would contend that it was not an independent Committee.
7. In the meantime, the petitioner had completed her three years B.Sc. Bio-Chemistry course by securing distinction in 10 papers and had obtained First Class in all the other papers. The said facts would clearly show that she was an outstanding student with an exemplary academic record. It is further stated that it is not the case of any of the respondents that the petitioner has not successfully completed 13 academic years from the French system of education. The only ground on which the petitioner was deprived of proper certification was that the said certificate dated 17.9.1998 does not appear to have been actually issued by the third respondent-Association. To the misfortune of the petitioner, the petitioner's maternal uncle had also died and there was no way of finding out the background in which the certificate dated 17.9.1998 was obtained.
8. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to have the results published by the respondents for her B.Sc. Bio-chemistry for six semesters and to have the said degree conferred on her. The petitioner was also entitled to get an equivalent certificate from the second respondent.
9. The fact that the petitioner took the equivalence certificate to the third respondent – Association for endorsement would clearly establish her bona fides. The petitioner had thereafter also approached the fourth respondent – University directly and given a letter requesting to evaluate the report and they had also replied stating that they will check their records. All the said facts would show that the petitioner had absolutely no role to play in the issue of equivalence certificate dated 17.9.1998. It appears that she was being victimised for the letter dated 15.6.1998 written by the mother of the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor of the second respondent – University in which she had set out the facts chronologically and how she was driven from pillar to post to obtain an equivalence certificate.
10. The petitioner would further submit that there was no impediment in law to publish the results.
11. In the counter filed by the second and third respondents, it is stated that the writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed in limine in view of the order in W.P.No.5743 of 2001. The petitioner had challenged the very same proceedings dated 5.1.20 01 and therefore, the said judgment in W.P.No.5743 of 2001 would operate as res judicata. The petitioner was initially admitted to the Associate degree of Micro Biology Course in Pondicherry University Community College only on her assurance that she would produce the equivalence certificate from the third respondent. The contention that the University was bound to consider the equivalence of Baccalaureat degree obtained by her in a French School was outrageous. The course undergone by her was not equal to be considered as 10+2 in Indian system. Though it is a fact that the petitioner was a brilliant student, the same would not warrant the University to give a go-by to the act of misrepresentation by the student in her anxiety to seek admission on the basis of fabricated documents. Whe n the fifth Semester was scheduled in December, 2000, the University received a communication from the third respondent disclosing that the certificate dated 17.9.19 98 was a forged one. The said communication was sufficient for the University to cancel the admission of the petitioner. Therefore, the sixth Semester examination as well as practical examination came to be conducted, only on the basis of the order of this Court in W.P. No.5743 of 2001, and the petitioner cannot sustain her claim to be continued in the higher course of study.
12. In the separate counter later filed by the third respondent also, the same stand has been taken and the third respondent has stated that there are several features in the certificate dated 17.9.1998 which would disclose that the certificate was not issued by the third respondent. It is however, not necessary to deal with the said facts having regard to the manner of disposal of this writ petition. The third respondent would further state that the petitioner does not claim to have obtained Baccalaureat examination certificate but claims only to have studied for 13 years. Studying for 13 years without passing examination will not entitle the petitioner to receive the equivalent certificate. After this Court disposed of W.P.No.5743 of 2001, the respondents constituted a Committee which went through all the materials produced by the petitioner and after carefully going through the representation given by the petitioner and in view of the fact that she had not properly answered the points raised by the respondents and has also failed to produce Baccalaureat certificate, the Committee members rightly came to the conclusion that the certificate was fake and never issued by the third respondent.
13. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing during the month of February 2002, detailed arguments were submitted by both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Course undergone by the petitioner was sufficient to secure the certificate and that her results were B.Sc. Degree deserved to be published and that even though she had been given provisional admission into medical course, the entire career of the petitioner was now jeoparadised by a deliberate attitude on the part of the respondents to punish her for the production of the certificate which was allegedly forged. The certificate was obtained by the maternal uncle of the petitioner by in fact, applying for the same and paying necessary fee for certificate. However, the uncle of the petitioner was not alive as on today. Learned counsel also referred to various Regulations dealing with the equivalence as well as Treaty between the Republic of France and Indian Union and contended that the Course which has been admittedly undergone by the petitioner was sufficient for her to secure the certificate.
14. I have heard both learned counsel for second and third respondents and their endeavour was to establish that the certificate dated 1 7.9.1998 produced by the petitioner was not genuine and that the third respondent, which is stated to have issued the certificate had denied issuing the said certificate. But there was little or no attempt to deal with the points raised by the petitioner as regards whether the Course undergone by the petitioner was equivalent or not so as to be entitled to receive the certificate as required.
15. At this stage, it is necessary to deal with the facts relating to the certificate obtained by the petitioner dated 17.9.1998 and assuming that the certificate was not a genuine one, how far the petitioner is to be blamed or penalised for it. According to the petitioner, when she sought admission into B.Sc. Degree course she was required to produce the equivalent certificate and mother of the petitioner had applied for it from the second respondent University itself. But she was not given the certificate and was being driven from pillar to post. This resulted in the petitioner's mother writing a strong letter to the second respondent University dated 15.6.1998. It is further stated that the petitioner's maternal uncle who was in Maharashtra State, on coming to know about the predicament of the petitioner and on coming to know that Shivaji University had recognised the course undergone by the petitioner as equivalent to P.U.C., had approached the Shivaji University, Kolhapur, fourth respondent, for obtaining the equivalent certificate. On being informed by him, the petitioner applied through her maternal uncle for the certificate on 17.8.1998. On 17.9.1998 a certificate was issued by the third respondent Association of Indian Universities, (AIU) to the petitioner through the fourth respondent,Shivaji University stating that the course undergone by the petitioner was equivalent to the Pre-degree/Plus Two of any Indian institution and thereby be permitted to join the first year of any degree course in any Indian University, provided she must be well versed in English. On the basis of this certificate, she was admitted into the degree course. But when she wrote the medical entrance test on 25.11.2000 she was required to get the very same certificate once again endorsed by the third respondent – AIU. The petitioner had sent the same to the third respondent for endorsement. This appears to have resulted in the third respondent informing the second respondent University that they have not issued any such certificate. This resulted in cancellation of the petitioner her admission into B.Sc. Degree. This particular circumstance of having obtained a false certificate appears to have been weighing in the mind of the respondents and in turning a deaf ear to all the points raised by the petitioner as regards her only qualification, which attitude is reflected in the counter also. It is true that a person who is a major and by himself procures a false certificate, needs to be treated sternly and I have no sympathies for a person who would indulge in procuring a false certificate. But the following circumstances have weighed in my mind, to conclude that this issue is required to be ignored:-
(i) The certificate has been sent to the petitioner through Shivaji University and Shivaji University had not positively responded to the letters of the petitioner in clearing the facts. Apart from sending a reply on 17.2.2001 stating that only after going through the records, they will be able to communicate further, they have not responded subsequently. Even now though they have been impleaded as respondents, they have not come out with necessary facts. There is correspondence between the petitioner's maternal uncle and the University and the usual fee for obtaining the certificate has also been paid. The said papers have been filed by the petitioner.
(ii) It is true that as on date, the reasons given by AIU to hold the certificate as a fake one, though not contradicted or disproved, unfortunately for the petitioner, her maternal uncle who had procured the certificate had met with an accident and is not alive as on date, to explain the facts and circumstances.
(iii) Assuming that the petitioner's maternal uncle had indulged in an indiscreet action of manipulating a certificate, should the petitioner who was a minor at that time be penalised? Being a minor she is presumed to have had no role to play both legally and morally and it would not be proper to punish her or to ruin her career for the commissions and omissions of a relative of the petitioner. If she was really aware of the fakeness of the certificate she would not have sent the same certificate for re-endorsement to the third respondent and invited trouble.
16. In the above background, I felt that it was not proper to be diverted by this issue and to stifle the career of the petitioner if she was really otherwise qualified and satisfied the requirements to be granted with the certificate. At this juncture what is necessary is to reassess her qualification and to find out whether she satisfies the requirement or not. I also felt that it was not proper for the University to abandon its functions of taking decision over claims of equivalence and qualification and delegate it to a private institution like the third respondent and to rely on the advise of a committee of such private institution or to be guided by a book relied on by it. It is the primary duty of the University which should be guided by its own standards and norms and cannot allow their power to be controlled by a private institution. In fact, with reference to the book released by the very same the third respondent, the Supreme Court in TARIQ ISLAM v. ALIGAH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY (2001 (8) S.C.C., 546), held that no reliance can be placed on the book published by AIU and no special sanctity or binding force or authority can be ascribed to the said book. The manner in which the Committee of AIU had also dealt with the claim of the petitioner pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.5743 of 2001 is also not satisfactory, in the context of assessing the qualification. Their letter dated 26.9.2001, reflects only a closed mind. Without any reference to the materials placed by the petitioner and with pointed reference to their own book treating Baccalaureat Part I as equivalent to Plus Two course and without going into the contents of the Course actually undergone by her, it chose to observe that she had failed to produce Baccalaureat certificate. The manner in which the third respondent had passed the impugned order dated 26.9.2001 leaves much to be said. Apart from having issued a notice calling for her explanation dated 27.7.2001 which clearly reflects that the third respondent had already come to a definite predetermined conclusion that the certificate was a fake one, no hearing was also given as ordered by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. on 18.06.2001 in W.P.No.5743 of 2001. In spite of fact that the petitioner also had, by her letter dated 1.8.2001, offered to appear in person if it was necessary to explain any point, no personal hearing had been given. This is apart from the fact that I have already held that the views of the third respondent regarding equivalence cannot have any binding effect on the second respondent University. In the case of Pondicherry University also as pointed out earlier, in its counter, they have also allowed themselves to be diverted by the alleged fakeness of the certificate rather than to positively deal with the points raised by the petitioner, as regards the equivalence of her qualification. In the said background, I informed learned counsel for the University that the University should evaluate the qualification of the petitioner independently in the back ground of the materials to be provided by her inclusive of the Treaty and Agreements between France and India and other materials and passed the following order dated 14.2.2002:-
"There is a controversy over the qualification equivalence of the Course undergone by the petitioner prior to she was admitted in the Medical Course. It is true that in respect of a certificate produced on behalf of the petitioner earlier, there is a doubt as regards the genuineness of the same and the 3rd respondent has stated that the certificate is not genuine. Considering that the certificate appears to have been obtained by either the parents or guardian of the petitioner, who was minor at that time, it is not necessary to attach any importance to the said certificate.
2. It is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of various rules and regulations since in the said context as well as the treaty between the Republic of France and India establishing Cession by the French Republic to the Indian Union of the French Establishments in India dated 28th May, 1956, the Certificate has been issued. Therefore, it is necessary to assess as to whether the course undergone by the petitioner is really equivalent and whether she is consequently qualified to be admitted in the Medical Course. It is represented by the counsel for the University that some of the documents now produced before this Court had not been filed before the University. Therefore, in interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to file all the relevant materials and papers before the University/second respondent within a period of one week. On such filing, the University is directed to assess the equivalence of the qualifications acquired by the petitioner within three weeks thereafter and report to this Court."
17. During the subsequent hearing learned counsel for the University had placed before me a cryptic report of the Equivalence Committee dated 7.3.2002 which is as follows:-
"After a brief welcome to the members, the item was taken up for discussion.
To consider the request of Ms.Savitri Vizoat for issue of equivalence certificate for her qualification Seconde studied at Lycee Francais, Pondicherry.
After detailed deliberations, the committee found that the eligibility criteria for admission to any UG degree course is either 10+2 or 1 1+1 (excluding Kindergarten). In the case of the candidate Ms. Savitri Vizoat, it is found that the Seconde course which she had undergone is equivalent to only 10 years of total study 1st Standard to Seconde (excluding 3 years Kindergarten study).
The exhibit No.1 submitted by the candidate Ms.Savitri Vizoat is self-explanatory in this regard and therefore the committee resolved unanimously that the course namely Seconde undergone by her is not equivalent to +2 and therefore she is not eligible for admission to any University course."
18. In my view, the above report is totally unsatisfactory and does not take into account the directions of this Court dated 14.02.2002. No reasons are given for its conclusions and no reference is made to any of the various materials furnished by the petitioner much less the Regulations as well as the Treaty and Agreements. A perusal of the representation of the petitioner dated 18.2.2002 discloses several details running to six pages accompanied by 20 Exhibits, but the Committee had expressed only one reason to reject the petitioner's claim namely, that the criteria for admission is that excluding Kindergarten course, candidates should have undergone 10+2 or 11+1 for admission into any University Course. The writ petitioner had filed a memo of objections dated 4.4.2002 to the report. When I had put a specific question to the learned counsel for the University as to how the Committee had not cared to deal with the other materials including the Treaty between France and India, which the University had been specifically directed to take notice, learned counsel requested time for filing counter and additional counter dated 15.4.2002 has been filed.
19. In her objections to the Report, the petitioner has mentioned a specific illustration of a student by name Miss. Sonia Das who was petitioner's class mate and who has been directly admitted into M.A. Course by the second respondent University without going through the B.A. Course or any other degree. According to the petitioner none of the points raised by the petitioner has been considered by the second respondent in the Report. The Report was clearly an expression of displeasure nurtured by the second respondent to the letter sent by the mother of the petitioner on 15.6.1998. When the writ petitioner applied for equivalent certificate from the third respondent as early as 4.5.1998, it was only after paying necessary fee and by proper procedure.
20.In the additional counter filed by the University, it is stated that the petitioner has not completed Baccalaureat course and that she has passed only "Seconde". It is only a intermediary course leading to Baccalaureat degree. No public examination has been conducted either by the Board or the University at the end of the "Seconde" course passed by the petitioner and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the Course undergone by her was equivalent to Baccalaureat Part-I is not correct. In the case of another candidate, Sonia Das, it is stated that she has completed her Baccalaureat course which is equivalent to completion of a Degree. As such she was qualified to be admitted into M.A.Course. Therefore, the petitioner has not even fulfilled basic condition, namely the required number of years of study. Merely undergoing first year of study without completing the course of study will not entitle her to an Equivalence certificate.
21. Though the report does not deal with the issues as directed by this Court, and is unsatisfactory and though the respondents cannot by filing a counter improve on the reasons stated in the report, yet the issue being assessment of academic qualification, I would take into account the stand taken in the additional counter also. In view of the reluctance on the part of the University to look into the issue in an objective and unbiased manner, this Court is left with no other alternative except to consider as to whether the qualifications acquired by the petitioner prior to joining B.Sc. Course, can be equated to P.U.C./+2 Course. The reasons stated in the additional counter for stating that she has not qualified is three-fold.
(i) Excluding Kindergarten course, the petitioner has completed only 10 years of study and not 11 years.
(ii) Baccalaureat Seconde is only an intermediary class and is not equivalent to Baccalaureat-I and the petitioner has not been subjected to any public examination.
(iii) The Treaty and the Agreements do not entitle the petitioner to receive the certificate.
22. It is noteworthy that the University's stand in the original counter was that the petitioner having studied for 13 years without passing the examination will not entitle her to the equivalent certificate simply for the reasons of having attended the classes for 13 years. But after materials had been placed before them showing that she had passed Baccalaureat-"Seconde", respondents would improvise their objections by stating that she did not complete 11 years after Kindergarten and that she has not appeared for any public examination.
23. At this stage, it is necessary to bear in mind that the difficulties that arose in the matter of recognition of the course content of the French system and Indian system were many and it is only in the context of resolving such uncertainties, Treaties and agreements were executed. If the issue could be treated and dealt with as simple as by merely calculating the years of study and that the candidate should have gone through the 11 years of study and should have also faced a public examination, then there was absolutely no need for the Treaty and the conditions thereon. It is only in consideration of the peculiarities of the two distinct educational systems adopted by the two countries, the need arose to evaluate the equivalence of the courses of study, and had to be incorporated in the agreements executed between two countries. The agreements or the Treaty do not insist on any specific number of years of study or that the student should have attended the public examination. The Treaty only refers the French Course undergone by the students and we cannot allow ourselves to be diverted by the requirements under Indian system. The Agreement or the Treaty is recognised under law and hence due regard has to be given to them. It is not open to the University to ignore the real content of the Treaty or the Agreement between two Governments.
24. Article XXVII of the agreement dated 21.10.1954 is as follows:-
"French diplomas and degrees awarded to persons belonging to the French Establishment, viz., "baccalaureat", "brevet elementaire", " brevet d'etudes du premier cycle", shall be examined by a joint education committee set up by the two Governments with a view to establishing their equivalence with diplomas and degrees awarded by Indian universities. Degrees in law and medicine awarded in French Establishments shall be examined similarly."
25. In 1954 a joint Committee was directed to go into the equivalence of the course. Then in the subsequent agreement dated 28.5.1956, Article XXV stipulates as follows:-
"Equivalence of French diplomas and degrees awarded to persons belonging to the French Establishments, namely "Baccalaureat", "brevet elementaire", "brevet d'etudes du premier cycle" with diplomas and degrees awarded by Indian Universities will be accepted by the Indian Government for admission to higher studies and administrative careers. These equivalence will be fixed according to the recommendations of the Joint Educational Committee, nominated by the two Governments in accordance with the agreement of 21 October, 1954. This shall apply equally to degrees in law and medicine awarded in the Establishments. Degrees of a purely local character shall be recognised under usual conditions."
26. Ultimately, the Supplementary agreement came to be executed on 16.3.1963 and Clause IV dealing with the Cultural questions is as follows:-
"IV CULTURAL QUESTIONS
1. Equivalence of diplomas The Indian delegation will recommend to appropriate authorities to recognize the following equivalencies:
(a) Brevet d'Etudes du Premeir Cycle and Brevet Elementaire to be equivalent to Matriculation;
(b) first part of Baccalaureat to be equivalent to Pre-University Certificate;
(c) holders of the Second part of Baccalaureat to be eligible for admission to the Second Year of B.A./B.Sc.,
(d) in individual cases, holders of French Baccalaureat to be admitted in classes higher than the 2nd year of B.A./B.Sc. after special examination."
27. Sub Clauses (b) and (c) of Clause IV visualise that First part of Baccalaureat will be equivalent to Pre-University Certificate while a holder of Second part of Baccalaureat would be eligible to be admitted in Second year of B.A./B.Sc. Sub Clause (d) goes a step further whereby holders of Second part Baccalaureat could be admitted in classes higher than the classes of B.A./B.Sc. after special examination.
28. The above clauses clearly indicate the liberal manner in which the qualification of the students having undergone French course is intended be adopted having regard to the differences between the two systems. Agreements incorporate solemn undertaking by both the States which are binding on all the parties concerned. As far as the petitioner is concerned, respondents do not dispute that she has passed Baccalaureat "Seconde" and had completed First year Baccalaureat course. She has also produced the certificate to show that she has passed the first year, and the mark list of the three semesters (13th academic year) has also been produced. Added to these factors, a certificate of Lycee Francais De Pondicherry had been furnished certifying that the petitioner had studied from the year 1985-86 to Seconde up to 1997-98 which is totally 13 academic years namely, 3 years in Maternelle, 5 years in Primary, 4 years in College and 3 years in Lycee (after college). It is further stated in the same certificate that the final examination of Baccalaureat would be at the end of 15 years which would enable the student to obtain admission into higher studies.
29. In spite of the above materials, the respondents, for reasons known to themselves, want to stick on to their stand that Baccalaureat Seconde is not equivalent to the Part-I. This is totally unsustainable. While dealing with the case of Soniadas, the respondents had admitted that she having completed Baccalaureat course has been allowed to join the Post Graduate course in M.A.French. It is admitted in the counter that the completion of Baccalaureat course of study would be equivalent to completion of a degree making the candidate eligible to be admitted in any P.G. Course. If so, there is no impediment in holding that a student successfully completing the first year course of Baccalaureat Seconde would be considered as equivalent to completion of P.U.C. Course. This is not only logical, but also mandatory having regard to Clause IV of the Supplemental agreement dated 16.3.1 963. In fact it is made further clear that one who completes the second year course of Baccalaureat would be eligible to be admitted in the Second year of B.A./B.Sc. It is rather unfortunate that the University should have taken a negative and mechanical attitude arising out of the alleged fakeness of the certificate issued by AIU and also probably due to the petitioner approaching the Court. There is also likelihood of the University adopting a negative approach resulting in the mother of the petitioner having written a letter to the second respondent University on 15.6.1998 criticising the University in strong words for the reason that University was driving her from Pillar to Post for obtaining the equivalence certificate in spite of her several attempts. Whether she was justified in writing a strongly worded letter or not, a public authority when required to discharge a quasi judicial function or similar functions should view the issues objectively and on the basis of the materials before them and should not be carried away by other factors on the basis of personal likes and dislikes. The reasons for the execution of Treaty and its Clauses have to be borne in mind having regard to the peculiar features and course contents of different courses of the two educational systems in a practical manner and there is no justification to import a rigid formula of 11 years course of study as is required under Indian system. If in the case of Sonia Das, completion of Baccalaureat could entitle her to get admission into P.G. Course there is no reason why the petitioner should be discriminated and not treated her as having completed P.U.C. Considering that she had passed Baccalaureat Seconde. There is no reason why the specific directions contained in Class IV of the Supplemental agreement should be ignored.
30. Further, the entire course content of the petitioner was placed before the University when the petitioner had joined her B.Sc. Course and the University was satisfied about the petitioner's eligibility to join B.Sc. Course. It is true that the certificate alleged to have been issued by the third respondent is stated to be not genuine. Even so, the University is obliged to assess the qualification independently. They did assess the qualification of the petitioner and were satisfied about the equivalence. The mere fact that the certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be not genuine for which the petitioner cannot be blamed, should not make any difference if the course undergone by the petitioner satisfied the required qualification.
31. The petitioner had not only successfully completed five Semesters in B.Sc. Course but had subsequently completed the course and had also obtained admission in M.B.B.S. Course (during the pendency of the writ petitions) but now left high and dry only because of this controversy. It is true that she cannot rely on the benefits of the interim order, but the fact remains that she had passed five semesters in B.Sc.Course even earlier. It is also not in dispute that meritwise she has been certified as a brilliant student and in fact in the counter of the respondents itself, it is stated that as a matter of fact and record the petitioner was a brilliant student. She has also been found to be one of the toppers.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied on the following judgments in support of his contention that when once a student is admitted into a course on the basis of a certificate issued by the authority, then it is not open to the authorities to cancel the same and to disallow the petitioner to continue her studies:-
(i) SHARWAN KUMAR v. DIRECTOR GENERAL, HEALTH SERVICES (A.I.R.1994 S.C., 1448);
(ii) SASIKUMAR,J. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS (1999 Writ L.R.,46
8);
(iii) SIJIN THOMAS JACOB v. THE BHARATHIAR UNIVESITY, COIMBATORE (20 01 (1) M.L.J., 593);
(iv) ANAMIKA BISHNOI v. MANJU CHAUDHRY (1996 (2)S.C.C., 144).
33. The above judgments may not directly apply to the case of the petitioner considering that those are cases in which either the grant of certificate or withdrawal of the certificate was due to mistakes on the part of the authorities. In the present case, the certificate produced on behalf of the petitioner is alleged to be a manipulated one. But those judgments may help the petitioner to a limited extent namely that when once a student has been admitted into a course and has undergone the course for a sufficient length of period successfully, it may not be proper for the authorities to cancel the admission on their reassessment of the qualification.
34. In TARIQ ISLAM v. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY (2001 (8) S.C.C., 5 46), the Supreme Court held that equivalence of qualification has to be determined before a person is allowed to undergo a course and when as a result of such admission the candidate has obtained high qualification, it is difficult to imagine that the equivalence of the qualification obtained by him earlier was not properly considered by the University, that to nullify the equivalence declared by the University in such circumstances will be causing grave injustice to the individual and if the candidate had been denied admission on the ground that the qualification was not equivalent he might have pursued his studies elsewhere.
35. I am also unable to entertain the objections as raised in the counter of the University in a very vehement and repeated manner that this writ petition was barred by res judicata vide order of F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla,J. in W.P.No.5743 of 2001. I am unable to sustain the said contention. It is true that the learned Judge directed the AIU to hold an enquiry as regards the genuineness of the certificate. I have already found that the enquiry by AIU and the order passed by them on 26.9.2001 do not conform to the directions of the learned Judge and the petitioner had not been given personal hearing. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to canvass the correctness or otherwise of the said order. Secondly, subsequent to the order of the learned Judge, the Supreme court had rendered its judgment in 2001 (8) S.C.C., 54 6, supra, holding that the book published by AIU cannot have any binding force. Thirdly, I have also dealt with the issue of the futility of referring to the genuineness of the certificate and that no useful purpose would be served in trying to penalise the petitioner who was a minor at the time of obtaining certificate. Therefore, for all the said reasons I am unable to hold that the order of Ibrahim Kalifulla,J. in W.P.No.5743 of 2001 would operate as res judicata.
36. In the result, both the above writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed as unnecessary.
Index: Yes.
Internet: Yes.
sai/-
K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM,J.
Respondents are directed to comply with the directions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sai/- 15.05.2002 To 1. The Director, Pondicherry University- Community College, TAC Campus, Lawspet, Pondicherry – 605 008. 2. Pondicherry University, represented by its Registrar, R.V.Nagar, Kalapet, Pondicherry – 605 014. 3. Association of Indian Universities, represented by its Secretary General, AIU House, 16, Kotia Marg, New Delhi – 110 002. 4. Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416 004. K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM.J. Order in W.P.Nos.20668 and 20669 of 2001 Delivered on :15 .05.2002