IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

K. Vinod Chandran, J ---------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C).Nos.113 of 2014-L & 114 of 2014-L ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 27th day of March, 2014 BRIDGIT MEGHA. P.S. Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS and Ors

JUDGMENT
Identical question is raised in both the writ petitions; whether the graduate degree obtained by the petitioners, being Bachelor of Business Administration offered by the Madras University through its Distance Education Programme, could be considered as an eligible qualification for admission to the Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, affiliated to the University of Kerala, the 3rd respondent; to its Three Year LL.B Course.

2. Both the petitioners appeared in the Common Entrance Examination conducted by the 1st respondent, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, as per the "Prospectus for Admission to Three Year LL.B. Course, Kerala 2013-14", produced as Exhibit P3. The graduate course carried on by the petitioners was successfully completed and the same has been recognized as equivalent by the Mahatma Gandhi University, as is evident from Exhibit P4. The cause of action for the writ petitions arose when the 2nd respondent, the Principal of the College, refused to admit the petitioners for want of an Eligibility Certificate from the 3rd respondent-University. The Eligibility Certificate required, was to be issued by the respondent-University, certifying that such degree offered by the Madras University is equivalent to the BBA of the 3rd respondent, so as to enable the student to enroll for higher studies in the 3rd respondent-University.

3. The prospectus issued by the 1st respondent provides by Clause 6(ii) that the candidate seeking admission to the course should be a graduate in any faculty of any University in Kerala or of any other Universities, recognized by any of the Universities in Kerala as equivalent thereto. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the graduate qualification of the petitioners having been recognized by the Mahatma Gandhi University, they were entitled to appear for and get allotment of the seat in the Common Entrance Examination for admission to the Three Year LL.B. Course 2013-14.

4. The petitioners were also permitted to be admitted to the Three Year LL.B. course by an interim order dated 02.01.2014. The petitioners rely on Thomas M.Koshy v. Commissioner for Entrance Examination [2013 (2) KLT 770], which considered the prospectus of the earlier years, wherein the stipulation was the production of Eligibility Certificate from the University concerned. This Court held that the same can only be a 'draftsman's error' and it was observed that it was for the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to make proper corrections in the prospectus to the appropriate extent, lest the anomaly should prevail. It was in the context of this judgment, it is argued, that the prospectus has now been changed to Eligibility Certificate from a University in Kerala in Clause 16(viii) of the prospectus under the heading "documents to be produced at the time of admission". The petitioners seek for a declaration that, in view of the Eligibility Certificate regarding their graduate degree granted by the Mahatma Gandhi University, they are entitled to be admitted to the Three Year LL.B. course carried on by the University of Kerala also, going by the clear terms in Exhibit P3 prospectus.

5. The learned counsel for the University, however, asserts their supremacy in prescribing eligibility conditions to be enrolled for higher studies in their University. The Academic Council of the 3rd respondent-University has such powers, of deciding the eligibility of a course carried on by any University outside the State of Kerala and it cannot depend on the decision of an Academic Council of another University within Kerala and it will not lie in the mouth of the 1st respondent to prescribe or alter the conditions of eligibility.

6. The Entrance Examination is conducted for admission to the four Government Law Colleges and one private Self-financing Law College, the latter presumably by agreement entered into by the State with the private management, as a measure to ensure that merit is not diluted. The Government Law Colleges, obviously are, directly under the State and though the State has the power to regulate admissions, to their colleges and those colleges under the private managements which have entered into agreements with the State, that cannot lead to any dilution of standards prescribed by the respondent-University. The respondent-University maintains that unless and until a qualifying degree has been recognized by the respondent-University, no person can carry on any course offered by it. The learned Standing Counsel also relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court, reported in Varghese v. Director of Medical Education [1987 (2) KLT 673], to contend that the prospectus cannot override the University Statutes and administrative instructions, will not cure, ineligibility as per the University Statutes.

7. Before looking at the legal issue, this Court has to look at the various clauses in the prospectus. The academic eligibility for admission, as has been indicated under Clause 6(ii), is a graduate degree recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala. The Eligibility Certificate, included in the documents to be produced at the time of admission, was also, the Eligibility Certificate from a University in Kerala. It is to be noticed that the Government Law Colleges at Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, Thrissur and Kozhikode are respectively under three Universities in Kerala. The one at Thiruvananthapuram under the University of Kerala, those at Ernakulam and Thrissur under the Mahatma Gandhi University and the one at Kozhikode under the Calicut University. It is to be immediately noticed in this context that the petitioners, if they were fortuitously allotted to the two Government Colleges under the Mahatma Gandhi University or the private self-financing college, also under the very same University; then they would have been entitled to continue the Three Year LL.B. course. On completion of such course, the immediate end result of enrolment to the Bar Council of Kerala would also follow and they would be treated as equivalent to the LL.B graduates all over the State, nay country.

8. The prospectus, under Clause 15, speaks of 'Centralised Allotment Process and Online Submission of Options', thus enabling the students to make an option, in accordance with their choice for allotment to either of the collegs stipulated thereunder. The eligibility for registering options under Clause 15.1(e)

prescribes that the eligibility conditions, regarding nativity and academic qualifications, of the prospectus should be ensured and that such academic eligibility should be satisfied on the date of admission to the course. It is also stipulated that the Principal/Head of the Institution will be responsible for verification of eligibility conditions as prescribed in the prospectus, at the time of admission and only those candidates who are qualified as prescribed, shall be admitted, irrespective of the fact of allotment. It is also highlighted, by way of a note under Clause 15.1, that since different Universities are offering different subjects/papers for the LL.B Courses, the candidate should ascertain from the colleges regarding the courses and subjects offered by the respective Universities before submitting options.

9. Looking at the entire provisions in the prospectus, a candidate proposing to seek admission to the Three Year LL.B Course would normally be held to understand that the academic eligibility conditions are only those, stated in the prospectus. The controversy itself would not have arisen if the 1st respondent was careful to include a clause in the prospectus that despite allotment as per the prospectus, the eligibility for admission would depend on the conditions prescribed by each University, upon which necessarily a candidate would have had to enquire about the same, before exercising his option.

10. The Bench decision of this Court cited by the University [Varghese (supra)], declared that the University Statutes are not overridden by the contrary provisions in the prospectus. The said case arose with respect to a dispute between the 1st and 3rd rank holder in an Entrance Examination, to the one seat available, for admission to the Post Graduate Course in Dentistry. While the 1st rank holder was a Graduate in Dental Surgery from the Annamalai University in Tamil Nadu, the 3rd respondent had such degree from the Kerala University. The Selection Committee, decided that the admission of graduates from outside University would depend upon recognition of their degrees by the Kerala University. The 3rd rank holder challenged the admission on the ground that the 1st rank holder's degree was not recognized by the Kerala University. Subsequently, the degree was recognized by the University, which gave rise to a controversy as to whether the eligibility should be on the date of application or could be later on. This Court is not concerned with that controversy.

11. The prospectus in that case, issued by the Government, prescribed as eligibility; a graduate degree in Dentistry from the Kerala University or any University recognized by the Kerala University with not less than one year experience in clinical/teaching/House Surgeoncy. The Kerala University Statues, however, provided that the threshold eligiblity for a candidate having graduate degree from an outside University, recognized by the University of Kerala, would be that; such graduate qualification was acquired two years prior to seeking admission, to the M.D.S. Course. The 1st rank holder in the Entrance Examination admittedly had not completed two years after obtaining his graduate qualification from an outside University. The Division Bench held so: "When the Academic body like the University prescribes the conditions for eligibility for admission to a Post graduate course, it would be wholly "inappropriate for the High Court" to mitigate the rigour of the rule by any interpretative device. When, therefore, the person who has to his credit only an equivalent Degree or qualification and the University insists that he becomes eligible only after two years of 'maturity', it is the mandate of an academic body, the demand of the University statutes. No person can gain admission to a post Graduate course in medicine or Dental Science unless he fulfils the conditions stipulated under the University Act, Statutes or Regulations". The Division Bench in coming to such a finding, relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.N.Chanchala v. State of Mysore [AIR 1971 SC 1762], which held so: "The medical colleges in question are not university colleges but have been set up and are being maintained by the State Government from out of public funds. Since they are affiliated to one or the other of the three universities, the Government cannot frame rules or act inconsistently with the ordinances or the regulations of the universities laying down standards of eligibility" [para 16]. It is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge, who dealt with Thomas M.Koshy (supra) was not apprised of the Division Bench Judgment or the Supreme Court judgment.

12. Thomas M.Koshy dealt with a similar controversy as in the instant case, but the roles of the respective Universities were reversed. The petitioner therein was agraduate from Sambalpur University, having obtained the graduate degree in a two year duration course. This degree was recognized by the Kerala University; but the candidate was allotted to a college under the Mahatma Gandhi University, which University declined admission for reason of there being no recognition of the Academic Council of that University. The learned Single Judge had, in fact, elaborately examined the provisions of the prospectus and also noticed the circumstance of a candidate alloted to a college under one University being declined of admission for reason of his graduate qualification not having been recognized by that

University, while a similar candidate, who has identical qualification, would be accepted by another University within the State. It was in this context that the learned Single Judge held so in paragraph 17:"17. The usage of the 'definite article' in Clause 17(viii) as to the Eligibility Certificate to be obtained, referring to "the University concerned", can only be the 'draft man's error' and it should be read and understood so as to mean that the 'Eligibility Certificate' can be obtained from any of the Universities in Kerala. It is for the first respondent to make proper correction in the prospectus to the appropriate extent, lest the anomaly should prevail, leading to unnecessary litigations". 13. It is the case of the petitioners that this had prompted the first respondent to have changed the stipulation in the prospectus, to Eligibility Certificate of a University in Kerala. One has to pointedly notice the observation of the Division Bench extracted herein above that the rigour prescribed by the statutes cannot be mitigated by the High Court by an interpretative device.

14. With due respect, I concede inability to persuade myself to accept the dictum laid down in Thomas M.Koshy (supra) and also the change in the prospectus suggested. What was intended earlier was that the academic eligibility would depend upon the prescription by the respective Universities. What was required in the earlier years, was an Eligibility Certificate from the University, which words though anomalous, was supposed to indicate the primacy of the respective University Statutes, over the provisions of the prospectus, declared by the Division Bench of this Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

15. The Commissioner for Entrance Examination had even specified in the prospectus, that the syllabi of the course conducted by the respective colleges would have to be ascertained by each candidate before exercising option. In my view, it would have been appropriate to have included a specification that the eligibility of a graduate degree from an outside University, should be ensured from the respective Universities. The option then would be exercised only on that basis. It is evident that the judgment in Thomas M.Koshy (supra) was rendered without noticing the Division Bench decision of this Court in Varghese (supra) and that of the Supreme Court in D.N. Chanchala (supra). Going by the binding judgments of a Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prospectus cannot override the University Statutes or the Regulations brought in, under the Statute. As far as the BBA

Degree of Madras University, through distance education, the same has been declined equivalence by the 3rd respondent-University on the application by another student [Exhibit R3(a)]. Hence, the denial of the Principal to admit the petitioners to the Three Year LL.B course is in accordance with the regulations of the 3rd respondent-University; which action cannot be faulted. Now the question is as to whether the petitioners, who were provisionally admitted, could be continued.

16. The Supreme Court has in a number of decisions, considered the question of eligibility and the principles of equity, in directing continuance in a course even when the candidate does not fulfil the eligibility criteria, when such action has been in consequence of a default on the part of the University. In Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University [(1976) 1 SCC 311] the University had issued admission card to a student to appear in Part I Law examination and the admission was challenged only at the time of Part II of the Law examination, that too on a ground that the candidate, who was employed under the Government, had not produced a Consent Certificate from his employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that such a stipulation was not there and also held that it was the duty of the College as also the University to scrutinise the papers as to the threshold requirement and no subsequent cancellation can be made on the ground of non-fulfilment of requirements. Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University [(1990) 3 SCC 23] was a case in which the candidate was admitted by the Law College and the University and also permitted to appear for pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations. The College and the University were held to be estopped from refusing to declare the results of the examination on the ground of his ineligibility for admission to the Law course. Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 610] was a case in which the appellant-University had recognized the regular courses and the correspondence courses in M.A. conducted by Annamalai University; but, however, had declined such recognition to M.A. (OUS) Course through Distance Education [Open University System]. It was held so in paragraphs 15 and 16: 15. The first respondent has passed his MA (OUS) from Annamalai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that the appellant University has recognised MA (English) (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to MA of appellant University. Thus, it has to be held that the first respondent

does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant University for admission to the three year law course. 16. The first respondent made a faint attempt to contend that the distance education system includes "correspondence courses" and therefore, recognition of MA (correspondence course) as equivalent to MA course of the appellant University would amount to recognition of MA, OUS (distance education) course, as an equivalent. For this purpose, he relied upon the definition of "distance education system" in Section 2(e) of the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985. But there is nothing to show that Annamalai University has treated correspondence course and OUS (distance education) course as the same. What is more important is that the appellant University does not wish to treat the correspondence course and distance education course as being the same. That is a matter of policy. Courts will not interfere with the said policy relating to an academic matter". 17. It is to be specifically noticed that in Gurunanak University (supra), despite the above finding, the respondent therein was permitted to continue the course on the peculiar facts of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the fact that the student was admitted through a common entrance test and was allowed to write the 1st Semester Examination and the student was not guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation. The petitioner's admission and continuance was due to some confusion in the University itself, as to the recognition of the course. The cancellation of his admission, after the 1st Semester Examination was challenged before the High Court successfully. The Supreme Court was dealing with the appeal after four years when the candidate had completed the course. In that circumstance, it was held to be unfair and unjust to deny the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and recognized by the appellant-University.

18. In the present case, the College and the University had, at the first instance itself declined admission on the question of eligibility. The petitioners had prayed for a provisional order of admission, which was granted by this Court in January, 2014. It is also in such circumstance that this Court heard the matter out of turn and with expediency. No grounds exist on equity. Binding precedents would command this Court to steer away from interfering in an academic matter, where the University has a fair amount of supremacy in deciding on eligibility conditions. On the strength of the binding precedents, it has to be held that the petitioners are unqualified to be admitted to the Three Year LL.B Course of the Kerala University.

Writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- ( true copy )