Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 741 (MAD)

M. Bhaskar v. The Registrar, University of Madras

1997-07-25

K.GOVINDARAJAN

body1997
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a B.Sc, LL.B., graduate from Nagpur University which is recognised by the University Grants Commission and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was granted Migration Certificate by Nagpur Universityvide certificate No.1863 dated 29.9.1981. He applied for the course of Master of Law in International Law and Constitutional Law in Madras University for the academic year 1996-1997. The petitioner was called for oral interview by the second respondent on 14.10.1996 and according to the petitioner he answered all the questions put to him. He was also selected provisionally as a first candidate on merit list on O.C. Category by the second respondent for Master of Law course. In the letter dated 11.11.1996 the petitioner was asked to produce relevant documents like college leaving or transfer certificate, eligibility certificate, mark sheet, conduct certificate on 20.11.1996. So the petitioner applied for eligibility certificate with the first respondent on payment of fees of Rs.175. Since the petitioner came from other university, the second respondent did not issue to him the eligibility certificate. The petitioner, therefore, has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to grant the eligibility certificate and admit the petitioner in the Master of Law Course for the academic year 1996-1998. 2. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit and admitted that the petitioner was provisionally selected for admission under O.C.Category. On a perusal of the certificates produced by the petitioner it was found that he passed his LL.B., degree examination of three years duration of Nagpur University and has completed his basic degree course under 11+3 pattern instead of 10 + 2 + 3 or 11 + 1+3 pattern of duration as enunciated by the University Grants Commission. According to the respondents “it is only such of those candidates who are eligible having completed their degree as per the guidelines prescribed by the University Grants Commission who completes three years degree course in law are eligible for admission for post-graduate degree in law.” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner after completing his school studies for 11 years, he validly completed the degree course and got the degree also. Unless and until that degree is cancelled the petitioner is entitled to rely on the degree and study further on the basis of the said degree. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner after completing his school studies for 11 years, he validly completed the degree course and got the degree also. Unless and until that degree is cancelled the petitioner is entitled to rely on the degree and study further on the basis of the said degree. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted on the basis of the regulations issued by the University Grants Commission dated 25.11.1985 that the petitioner is not eligible for admission as he has not successfully completed 12 years schooling. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner after completing his 11 years schooling got admission in degree course and completed successfully the course and then got the degree also. The said degree has not been challenged or cancelled, and, for all other purposes, the petitioner is permitted to use that degree legally. The eligibility sought for by the petitioner has been refused only on the basis that the petitioner has not completed 12 years schooling, but, he has completed only 11 years schooling. This stand has been taken by the respondents on the basis of the Regulations issued by the University Grants Commission dated 25.11.1985. But, I do not find any such prohibition in the regulations, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on the regulation 2 in support of his submission, which is as follows: “Admission/Studies: (1) No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1 st Degree Course in these faculties unless he has successfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by a Board/ University The Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of criteria notified by the Institutes after taking into account the reservation order issued by the government from time to time. (2) Student enrolment shall be in accordance with the number of teachers and physical facilities available. (3) No student shall be eligible for the award of the first degree unless he has successfully completed a three year course, this degree may be called the B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. (General/Honours/ Special) degree as the case may be: Provided to student shall be eligible to seek admission to the Masters Course in these faculties who has not successfully pursued the first Degree Course of three years’ duration” Regulation 2(1) deals with the admission for the degree course. (General/Honours/ Special) degree as the case may be: Provided to student shall be eligible to seek admission to the Masters Course in these faculties who has not successfully pursued the first Degree Course of three years’ duration” Regulation 2(1) deals with the admission for the degree course. For the purpose of admission to the first degree course the student should have successfully completed 12 years schooling. With respect to the degree, it is stated in the regulation 3 that only if a student has successfully completed, three year course, he will get a degree. Relying on the Regulation 2(1), the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr.Jothimani has submitted that the petitioner has not completed 12 years schooling and so me degree obtained by the petitioner cannot be sustained. Such a submission cannot be sustained. The petitioner has admittedly got the degree in accordance with Regulation 2 (3) and such a degree is valid until it is challenged. It cannot become automatically invalid merely because the petitioner has completed only 11 years schooling. After completing the school studies admittedly the petitioner has studied three years in the degree course. Insofar as the degree is concerned, the degree obtained by the petitioner is valid one. So, Regulation 2(1)is applicable to the students who have sought for admission to the first degree course, and so it may not be applicable to the petitioner who is seeking admission in the Master Degree. The proviso to Regulation 2 also will support the case of the petitioner. Under the said proviso, no student shall be eligible to seek admission to the Masters Course who has not successfully pursued the first degree course of three years duration. The said proviso does not mention about any duration of schooling. The said proviso alone is relevant for the present case. Since there is no condition-predecent in the said proviso the respondents cannot be allowed to extend the condition or introduce a new condition regarding duration of schooling. The said proviso has referred to only with respect to the degree course but not with respect to school studies. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is eligible to be admitted in the M.L.Degree course and the stand taken by the respondents regarding the eligibility of the petitioner cannot be sustained, in view of the said proviso to regulation 2 of the Regulations. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is eligible to be admitted in the M.L.Degree course and the stand taken by the respondents regarding the eligibility of the petitioner cannot be sustained, in view of the said proviso to regulation 2 of the Regulations. Hence the writ petition has to be allowed. 5. It is represented that the course for the year 1996-1998 has already been started and so the petitioner cannot be fit in to the said course. In view of the said fact and also in view of the fact that the petitioner was selected as No. 1 candidate in the O.C. Category, I direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in the Master of Law Course (international Law and Constitutional Law) for the academic year 1997-1999. With the above observations this writ petition is allowed, No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.24221 of 1996 is closed.