Judgment : Manjula Chellur, C.J. 1. The entire controversy relates to the one and only issue whether the 1st respondent Dr.J.Prasad,Vice Chancellor of the 2nd respondent Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (in short Sanskrit University) had LL.B degree as claimed by him. It is an undisputed fact, as revealed from the records, that the 1st respondent was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the 2nd respondent University for a term of 4 years with effect from 9.12.2008. 2. The writ petitioner herein is a Class IV employee working in the very same University of which the 1st respondent is the Vice Chancellor. According to the writ petitioner, the 1st respondent, who is occupying a reputed post, i.e. of the Vice Chancellor of University, has claimed false degree by fabricating LL.B certificate. Therefore, it is a serious issue so far as the interest of the public at large, as such person is not entitled to continue as Vice Chancellor of a reputed University. 3. According to the petitioner, the claim of the 1st respondent is that he joined LL.B three year course in the academic year 1985-88 at Government Law College, Calicut under the University of Calicut. But the mark list and the provisional certificate submitted by him would indicate that he appeared for examination between 2004-06 and there is no connectivity between academic year 1985-88 and the dates of examination he appeared for. Therefore, the provisional certificate submitted by him, that too without seal and date, are highly suspicious, and hence the irresistible conclusion is that it is a fabricated document. To substantiate his claim, he also relies upon the correspondence made between him and the College wherein the Vice Chancellor had under taken the LL.B course, under RTI, which confirmed his suspicion about genuineness of the LL.B degree obtained by the 1st respondent. 4. As against this, the 1st respondent by detailed counter affidavit brought on record several facts pertaining to the strained relationship between the petitioner and the respondent on account of departmental enquiry launched against the petitioner at the instance of 1st respondent herein. According to the 1st respondent, it is nothing but a private interest litigation and on account of personal vendetta of the petitioner against the 1st respondent for initiating disciplinary proceedings for serious misconduct. According to the 1st respondent, it is nothing but a private interest litigation and on account of personal vendetta of the petitioner against the 1st respondent for initiating disciplinary proceedings for serious misconduct. Ever since initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, the petitioner is intimidating him by various means including writing letters, telegraphic messages and holding threats against the 1st respondent that unless the 1st respondent heeds to the illegal demands of the petitioner, he would trouble him by various actions which would bring ill-reputation to the 1st respondent. 5. So far as above allegations, the 1st respondent based on Ext.R1(a) and (b) lodged a complaint as per Ext.R1(c) followed by another complaint Ext.R1(d) informing the Police that threatening calls were received by the 1st respondent from the petitioner. The 1st respondent after detailing his four Post Graduate degrees in Sanskrit Special Sahitya, Sanskrit Special Vedanta, Sanskrit Special Vyakarana and in Hindi Language and Literature, other than a Ph.D in The Concept of Prathiba in Sanskrit Literature claims to possess qualification of LL.B and B.Ed in Sanskrit. According to him, he has to his credit publication of number of works and he has attended various seminars conducted by different academic bodies apart from having teaching experience of 28 years in Government Colleges under the Collegiate Education department. 5. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the University while working as a teacher in a Government College. So far as his qualification and teaching experience in the field of Sanskrit language, there is no dispute. We are only concerned with the allegation of the fake LL.B degree of the 1st respondent. 6. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent could never attend evening college while simultaneously working at a college, therefore, it was practically impossible for the 1st respondent to attend the evening college to secure a degree. So far as this allegation, the 1st respondent in categorical terms submitted in his 1st counter affidavit that while working in the Government Arts and Science College, Calicut, he joined for the evening course in the Government Law College, Calicut between 1985 and 1988. He appeared for the examination and passed the same in Second class and obtained the law degree, subsequently as is evident from hall tickets and mark lists as per Ext.R1(e) to R1(l). 7. He appeared for the examination and passed the same in Second class and obtained the law degree, subsequently as is evident from hall tickets and mark lists as per Ext.R1(e) to R1(l). 7. As we could see from the records, petitioner lodged a complaint before the Vice Chancellor of Calicut University that genuineness of LL.B of the 1st respondent is in doubt. In response to the same, the Controller of Examination directed the concerned Section to verify the genuineness of the certificate issued. The enquiry revealed that the complaint preferred by the writ petitioner was frivolous and the University office note put up in the office of the Calicut University dated 25.05.2012 and 01.06.2012 clearly indicate the details, when he appeared for the examination and also the Registration No. in the Hall Ticket. So far as the University is concerned, they have filed several counter affidavits on several occasions, the first one being in August 2012. The last counter affidavit filed by the Calicut University is dated 18.03.2013. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of Registrar of University of Calicut clearly gives the details of three mark lists between 2004-2006 which reads as under:- “It is submitted that on verification of Mark-List Issue Register kept in the office of the Law College, it was noticed that the first respondent was issued with three mark-lists showing the following details:- Reg. No Name of the Candidate Month and Year Marks Awarded of Exam July/August 1009 Prasad J 2004 152-156-58 1207 Prasad J August 2004 206-200 2114 Prasad J February 2006 54-50-50-50 Copies of the relevant pages of the Mark-List Issue Register for July-August 2004, August 2004 and February 2006 kept in the office of the Law College, Calicut have been produced as Exhibit R3(1), R3(2) and R3(3) respectively in the counter affidavit filed earlier.” 8. Copies of two Mark-List Issue Registers are also produced at Exts.R3(1), R3(2) and R3(3). So far as the 1st year LL.B degree examination, the candidate appeared with Registration No.1207 and 2nd year LLB examination with Registration Nos.1114 and 2114. So far as 3rd year LL.B examination, it was with Registration No.1009. This clearly indicates so far as the 2nd year LLB subjects, he appeared for the examination twice, therefore, two Registration Nos. are given. So far as the 1st year LL.B degree examination, the candidate appeared with Registration No.1207 and 2nd year LLB examination with Registration Nos.1114 and 2114. So far as 3rd year LL.B examination, it was with Registration No.1009. This clearly indicates so far as the 2nd year LLB subjects, he appeared for the examination twice, therefore, two Registration Nos. are given. In the 3rd year examination when he failed in three papers that is 1,2 and 4 he applied for revaluation of the answer scripts and a detailed note regarding revaluation are entered at Ext.R3(4). It is also clear from Ext.R3(5) how the Pass Board in its meeting dated 29.11.2004 resolved to award 21 marks to obtain a whole pass or in a part. In other words, the 21 marks allowed for moderation would be applied to the marks obtained by the candidates either in one subject or it could be distributed to various subjects in order to see a whole pass is given. Of course this depends upon individual case depending upon the marks obtained by the candidate in a particular subject. So far as this aspect, it is the policy decision of the Pass Board in the year 2004, much prior to the instant controversy which arose in the year 2012. 9. The entire suspicion seems to be on account of the Government Law College, Calicut giving a vague reply to the petitioner. Similarly, in the first counter affidavit filed by the University, though some doubts are expressed with regard to the revaluation of three papers of third year examination; the same is clarified in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed on the 18th day of March 2013. The fact remains that even at the earliest point of time there is no denial by the University of Calicut that the 1st respondent did complete LLB degree from their University. The doubt was with regard to the revaluation which came to be clarified at paragraphs 10 and 13 which read as under:- “10. It is submitted that at the time of filing the earlier affidavit it was noticed that the details regarding revaluation and subsequent changes in the marks as evidenced by Exhibits R3(1), R3(2) and R3(3) were not seen affected in the College. It is submitted that at the time of filing the earlier affidavit it was noticed that the details regarding revaluation and subsequent changes in the marks as evidenced by Exhibits R3(1), R3(2) and R3(3) were not seen affected in the College. On verification of the files, it was revealed that no enquiry was conducted against the Examiners for the disproportionate increase between the original marks and the marks obtained in revaluation which ought to have been done as per the Examination Regulations. Hence in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it was stated that there was a “shadow of doubt” regarding the revaluation process particularly in view of the drastic change in the revaluation marks. 13. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court on 12.03.13 the matter was considered in detail and the entire documents have been verified. After a detailed consideration of the matter and after verification of the entire records available with the University it is respectfully submitted that revaluation of the three papers of the first respondent were conducted in accordance with the University Regulations relating to revaluation and in view of the change in marks the papers were sent for second revaluation (third valuation) and accordingly based on the decision taken by the pass board moderation marks were granted”. 10. It is clear from the counter affidavits filed from time to time by the University of Calicut along with documents furnished by them, the 1st respondent did obtain LL.B Degree(three year course) from the University of Calicut immediately on completing the course from the Government Law College, Calicut. 11. In all probability the seed of suspicion must have been sown in the mind of the petitioner on account of Xerox copy of the provisional certificate issued to him from the Office of the Chancellor, Thiruvananthapuram as it did not have any seal or date. 12. In order to understand the genuineness of the doubt or suspicion expressed by the petitioner, after perusing the provisional certificates pertaining to the 1st respondent, placed before us, consisting provisional certificates with date and seal and without date and seal, we secured original file pertaining to the appointment of the 1st respondent as Vice Chancellor of 2nd respondent University along with the file pertaining to information given under RTI to the applicants from the Office of the Chancellor. The real reason for such discrepancies in the provisional certificate is made clear from the correspondence made by the 1st respondent himself, with the Office of the Chancellor. 13. The Government Pleader made the records available for our perusal and these records indicate, as early as 2012, the 1st respondent himself addressed a letter to the Secretary to His Excellency Governor, who happens to be the Chancellor, along with copies of provisional certificate and mark lists issued by the University of Calicut in the year 2006. This provisional certificate, though has some illegible date on the top of the certificate, did not reveal the seal except a small portion of the seal. Though there is some mark indicating date after the word 'dated' it is not legible. One Mr.Shanavas, who applied for information under RTI got certified copy of this provisional certificate along with memorandum indicating the marks of three year course of LLB of the 1st respondent and was under the impression that this provisional certificate is a fake one as there was no date and seal. It is also seen that this writ petition is filed based on the above document in the month of August 2012. Documents secured by the Government Pleader further reveals that on 13.08.2012 within five days from the date of filing the writ petition the 1st respondent submitted another Xerox copy of provisional certificate with date as 22.07.2006 and also the seal along with the various hall tickets. 14. In the letter addressed to the Secretary to Chancellor dated 13.08.2012 he clearly indicates that the copy sent by him on earlier occasion in the month of April did not have date and seal, and therefore, he is sending another Xerox copy which indicates the date and seal of issuance of provisional certificate from the University of Calicut. 15. The entire materials now placed before the Court, no doubt, initially raises some scope for suspecting the genuineness of the certificate submitted by the 1st respondent. There is no rule that unless a regular Degree certificate is furnished, one cannot be considered to have graduation. A provisional certificate is also enough for a candidate to know whether he has obtained a degree or not. There is no rule that unless a regular Degree certificate is furnished, one cannot be considered to have graduation. A provisional certificate is also enough for a candidate to know whether he has obtained a degree or not. Unfortunately, the Xerox copy of the provisional certificate seems to have created havoc in the present case as the date and seal were not clear when they were sent to the office of the Chancellor in the month of April 2012. Subsequently, the mistake is realized and Xerox copy of the provisional certificate with date and seal are sent. 16. In order to appreciate the stand of the 1st respondent that he did complete LLB degree and it was genuine and correct, we have the information from the very University from which the 1st respondent secured his LLB decree. As already stated above, not once but several counter affidavits and further statements along with documents filed by the Calicut University clearly indicate that the 1st respondent did obtain a Law degree from the Calicut University. Though he attended the classes between 198588 he could complete the course in the year 2006, therefore, the provisional certificate is dated 2006 and the mark list also clearly indicate that he repeated the 2nd year examination and had revaluation of three papers in the third year examination. This revaluation and repetition of 2nd year examination apart from obtaining a provisional certificate were much prior to the 1st respondent joining the 2nd respondent University. His appointment was made only in the year 2008 and attributing any infirmities or mala fide intention against the 1st respondent in securing these documents does not arise. It is impossible for anyone, especially the 1st respondent, to anticipate such a situation including a complaint by a person like the petitioner regarding his LLB degree in 2008. 17. It is pertinent to mention that probably no further enquires like obtaining LLB degree certificates at the time of appointment did not arise as it was not an essential qualification for the post of Vice Chancellor in the Sanskrit University as the requirement was his qualification in Sanskrit and teaching experience. It is nobody’s case that he had no required qualification and experience to be appointed as Vice Chancellor of the 2nd respondent University. 18. Therefore, we are the opinion the writ petition is based more on propriety rather than illegality. It is nobody’s case that he had no required qualification and experience to be appointed as Vice Chancellor of the 2nd respondent University. 18. Therefore, we are the opinion the writ petition is based more on propriety rather than illegality. It is purely based on personal vendetta. However, we desist from imposing any costs as the absence of date and seal on the provisional certificate led to a situation which was taken undue advantage by the petitioner to initiate this unholy litigation against the first respondent. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion, none of the grounds alleged against the 1st respondent and also the Calicut University are sustainable and the writ petition is dismissed.