Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 388 (KER)

Jimmy Light C. Joys v. Mahatma Gandhi University

2001-07-24

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

body2001
Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioners in these Original Petitions are students of M.Sc. Physics degree course in a private affiliated College of which the 4th respondent in O.P. 13858/2000 is the Principal. In both the petitions for the reason known only to the petitioners, they have not impleaded the management of the College though both of them got admission in the seats against management quota. That is very relevant to the subject matter agitated in this Original Petition viz., their eligibility for admission to the course. Both the petitioners obtained admission in the same Private College admittedly in management quota. As per the norms followed, management of each private college shall be entitled to admit students to the course conducted in their college to a specified percentage of seats. But such students shall satisfy the norms regarding the minimum eligibility for admission. They need not come in merit rank list. That is the only concession. It was thus they got admission in the seat against management quota. But as their admission is found to be irregular, the University has not registered them for the examination. 2. Admittedly the petitioner in O.P. 13858/2000 obtained only 50% marks for her optional subjects in the B.Sc. (Physics) degree course. Admittedly, the petitioner in O.P. 13970/2000 obtained less than 55% marks in her B.Sc. degree for optional subjects. She submits that it is short of only one mark out of 1000 for 55 per cent. The management submitted their applications to the University to register these two students for M.Sc. examination. The University scrutinised the details and found that both of them did not satisfy the minimum eligibility criterion of 55% of marks in the optional subjects for their B.Sc. degree. One should have at least that much mark to get admission to the post graduate degree course. Therefore the applications have been rejected and they are not registered for the M.Sc. examination. It is in the above circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the University to register them as students for M.Sc. degree examinations. They submit that the managements and the Principal have admitted them. So there is no reason for the University not to register them for the examination. 3. The University has defended this case based on the rules regulating admissions issued as early as on 21.6.1988, Ext. P8 in O.P. 13858/2000. degree examinations. They submit that the managements and the Principal have admitted them. So there is no reason for the University not to register them for the examination. 3. The University has defended this case based on the rules regulating admissions issued as early as on 21.6.1988, Ext. P8 in O.P. 13858/2000. Clause 5(0) of Ext. P8 reads as follows: "M.Sc. Physics: B.Sc. Physics with not less than 55% marks in the concerned optional subject including subsidiaries." (emphasis supplied) 4. It is submitted by the petitioner in O.P. 13858/2000 that Ext. P8 has been issued by the University adopting the rule framed by the sub Committee constituted for the purpose and taking a decision in the Principal's conference held on 8.12.1987. That Sub Committee report has been accepted by the University and the Vice Chancellor notified it exercising the power conferred on him by the Syndicate. That is why Ext. P8 has been issued on 21.6.1988. 5. It is submitted by the petitioner that Ext. P8 does not have any legal efficacy because it has not been published in gazette as provided for in S.42 of the M.G. University Act. It is further contended by the petitioner that it is without jurisdiction as well. In terms of S.25 of the said Act, the Academic Council alone will have power to regulate admission to various courses. As per S.25(v) it is the committee of the Academic Counsel to propose and examine the condition under which admission may be granted. Therefore, Ext. P8 cannot have any legal efficacy, as it is not one issued by the Academic Counsel of the University. So registration cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground of the minimum eligibility criteria fixed in Ext. P8. 6. It is to be noted here that the petitioners do not disclose the eligibility criteria followed before Ext. P8 had been notified. If there was no eligibility criterion it may be even possible to agitate that person having only subsidiary in the concerned subject can also seek admission for M.Sc. course or without such subject even. 7. In answer to this contention the counsel for the University sought to sustain Ext. P8 relying on S.23(xxxi). P8 had been notified. If there was no eligibility criterion it may be even possible to agitate that person having only subsidiary in the concerned subject can also seek admission for M.Sc. course or without such subject even. 7. In answer to this contention the counsel for the University sought to sustain Ext. P8 relying on S.23(xxxi). S.23(xxxi) provides, "To appoint committee and to delegate to them such functions as it may deem fit." As provided for in S.23 the executive powers of the University including the general superintendence and control over the institutions of the University shall be vested in the Syndicate and the Syndicate has got power to delegate such functions as it may deem fit. Ext. P8 disclosed that there was a Principal conference held on 8.12.87 and that conference had constituted a Sub Committee to frame rules regarding admission to various courses. Principals are always persons having experience in academic matters. Their conference was convened to give advice on the academic aspects to the University. It is based on the considerations in that meeting of the Principals of various colleges, a Sub Committee was constituted to frame rules. The Sub Committee framed the rules and those rules then framed by the Sub Committee had been accepted by the Vice Chancellor as per Ext. P8 as early as on 21.6.88. For more than one and the half decade that is being followed as the rules regarding admission to various courses in different colleges affiliated to the University. In such circumstances that has got the practical efficacy and it has to be taken as the accepted norms for regulating admission. That is perfectly within the purview of the power conferred on the Syndicate in terms of S.23(xxxi) of the Act. Therefore, Ext. PS cannot be stated to be without jurisdiction. 8. Ext. P8 shows that what were notified by the University are the rules for admission to various courses framed by the Sub Committee and those rules are adopted by the University as its rule. S.42 provides for publication of ordinance and regulations. Ext. P8 reveal that what is appended there to is "the rules for admission". For such rules no publication is necessary in terms of S.48. 9. More over publication is required only to make the matter known to the public. S.42 provides for publication of ordinance and regulations. Ext. P8 reveal that what is appended there to is "the rules for admission". For such rules no publication is necessary in terms of S.48. 9. More over publication is required only to make the matter known to the public. Even without publication if something is in existence of years together, necessarily that will be known to every one. In such circumstances the existence of Ext. P8 rules since 21.6.1988 shows that those rules are in existence and even if there is any procedural violation regarding publication it cannot lose its efficacy as that had been followed for years together for admission to various courses in different Colleges. Therefore, challenge against Ext. P8 on that ground fails. 10. The next issue to be considered is common to both the Original Petitions as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get registration by the University for M.Sc. degree examinations. 11. As already mentioned above both the petitioners got admission in the management quota. How they were admitted to management quota could be explained only by the management. But the management is not made a party to this proceedings. Ext. P7 in O.P. 13858/2000 is a letter from the Principal to the University enclosing there with a petition from the petitioner therein who had obtained only 50 per cent marks inspite of the eligibility criterion of 55 per cent. The Principal wrote to the University in Ext. P7 dated 12.5.2000 as follows: "As per the report received from the Head of the Department, I understand that there was some mistake in calculating her eligibility for admission. According to his understanding the minimum eligibility for admission was 50% instead of 55% marks". According to the Principal Head of the Department committed certain mistake. It is not known why the Principal did not supervise the admission atleast to the Post Graduate Degree course. In this case there is total lapse on the part of the Principal, whoever he may be, is concerned. Any how this letter disclosed that there was some mistake on the part of the Head of Department in'calculating her eligibility for admission'. That means the Head of Department had taken that 50% was the eligibility criterion. 12. It is at this juncture, another letter written by the very same Principal on the very same day, namely 12.5.2000, Ext. Any how this letter disclosed that there was some mistake on the part of the Head of Department in'calculating her eligibility for admission'. That means the Head of Department had taken that 50% was the eligibility criterion. 12. It is at this juncture, another letter written by the very same Principal on the very same day, namely 12.5.2000, Ext. P7 in O.P. 13970, is to be taken note of. The said letter disclosed as follows: "She had secured 54.9% marks for her B.Sc. final year examination which is short by 1 mark (0.1 %) to make her reach the 55% eligibility mark. We had rounded off the marks while giving admission, since to our knowledge, there was a practice of 0.5% grace marks in the University." (emphasis supplied)) This student is also admitted to the very same Post Graduate Degree Course in the very same year in the very same College. In other words, the Principal was here very much associated with the admission process and found that "we had rounded off the marks while giving admission to 55%, which the principal calls as eligibility marks". The 'we' shall necessarily apart from the Principal include the Head of Department who pretended ignorance of mark list in Ext. P7 in O.P. No. 13858/2000. His version in Ext. P7 that he was thinking that 50% marks was the eligibility criterion is thus belied. Thus they knew that eligibility mark is 55%, as evident from Ext. P7 dated 12.5.2000 in O.P. 139700/2000; where as the very same Principal on the very same day in Ext. P7 in O.P. No. 13858/2000 concerning the admission to the" very same course of another candidate was of the opinion that he understood that there was some mistake in calculating the eligibility for admission in respect of a candidate who got only 50% mark. These cannot tally each other. Therefore there is something fishy in the hands of Principal as is revealed by these two exhibits concerning two students in the very same class regarding their eligibility criterion. 13. Eligibility criterion for admission has to be strictly viewed and followed. These cannot tally each other. Therefore there is something fishy in the hands of Principal as is revealed by these two exhibits concerning two students in the very same class regarding their eligibility criterion. 13. Eligibility criterion for admission has to be strictly viewed and followed. In a State like Kerala when students with higher percentage of marks are roaming around the State for admission to Post Graduate courses, persons with lesser marks are given admission based on an agreement with the private management and Government in the management quota, the managements have a duty to admit persons satisfying the eligibility as determined or prescribed by the University. Therefore, the management committed the mischief and violated the rules the incumbent can not get any right. Any sympathy will always be misplaced sympathy to the ineligible candidate. In such circumstances the sympathy if shown only because the students had completed more than one year will be a misplaced sympathy at the cost of several other eligible hands. More over ineligible hands cannot get registration based on sympathy. Therefore the petitioner in O.P. 13858/2000 cannot be allowed to register for the examination as she is having only 50% marks, far less than the eligibility of 55% marks. 14. As already mentioned above eligibility criterion in Ext. P8 in O.P. 13858/2000 is not less than 55% for optional subjects. The committee of the Principals did not say that atleast 55 marks. The Principals knew how the marks are awarded. It was inspite of that the Principles or Sub Committee of the Principals recommended that the eligibility criterion shall be not less than 55% marks. The counsel for the petitioner would have been justified in saying that 54.9% marks shall be rounded to 55% if the phraseology used was at least 55% marks. But the phraseology used by the Sub Committee of the Principals is that, the criterion shall be not less than the 55% marks. Even 54.99% is less than 55% marks. In such circumstances based on the said phraseology there arise no occasion for any rounding off. Therefore the respondent principal cannot say as mentioned in Ext. P7 in that O.P. that we had rounded of the marks while giving admission". The University is not bound by that decision of the management or the Principal or the Head of the department of the College as the case may be. 15. Therefore the respondent principal cannot say as mentioned in Ext. P7 in that O.P. that we had rounded of the marks while giving admission". The University is not bound by that decision of the management or the Principal or the Head of the department of the College as the case may be. 15. Even in Ext. RI(b) the University had made it clear while considering earlier the request for exemption that the Syndicate in its decision No. 340 dated 16.7.98 had resolved not to grant the request for rounding off the marks. This is far earlier than the admission of the petitioners. In such circumstances this petitioner merely because there is short of one mark to attain 55% cannot get any exemption. Regarding academic matters like pass in examination, eligibility for a course of study etc. there cannot have any exemption. 16. The decision cited by the counsel for the petitioner in O.P. 13858/2000 in Sri. Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University (AIR 1976 SC 376), Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology Patiala (deemed University) v. Abhinay Taneja & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 1222) and Leela v. Indira Gandhi National Open University (2000 (3) KLT 904) cannot be followed in this case because first of all the petitioners were not admitted to the course by the University. The University had promulgated the eligibility criteria in advance. The private colleges are bound to follow such criterion. If the private affiliated colleges had violated such criterion the University cannot admit them. If the petitioner has sustained any damages necessarily the petitioner can raise such plea against the manager or the Principal in appropriate proceedings. University cannot be compelled to lower the standard. If the petitioners without minimum eligibility are allowed to register for M.Sc. examination, it will tell upon in general and will result in success of acocus who thinks they can easily get over the regulations for their favourities. That cannot be allowed, as it will be negation of the rule of law. Original Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.