IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 704 of 2008()
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
2. THE HEAD DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
Vs
1. GINU GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, KEEPADAYIL
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.704 of 2008
------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 17th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
Appellants challenge the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge, directing them to issue provisional degree certificate to the
petitioner for M.Phil in Future Studies.
2. It was contended by the petitioner that the University had
been dragging its feet in the matter of issuing the provisional certificate
on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce the eligibility
certificate in the qualifying examination. Though the claim made by the
petitioner was resisted by the University contending, inter alia, that the
petitioner had failed to produce the requisite qualifying certificate, the
learned Single Judge took the view that they could not be justified in
denying the certificate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly for the reason that the University had closed its eyes in the
matter, for no justifiable reasons. If, in fact, the University was of the
view that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for
admission to M.Phil Course in as much as the Master’s Degree obtained
by him was not recognised by the University, it ought to have alerted the
petitioner or taken appropriate action in the matter well in time. The
W.A.No.704 of 2008 – 2 –
petitioner having completed the course and having passed the M.Phil
Examination, it was not proper or just on the part of the University in
denying the provisional certificate to him, it was observed by the learned
Single Judge. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single
Judge had also placed reliance on the decision of Their Lordships of the
Supreme Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University
and others [(1990) 3 SCC 23].
3. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel for the
appellants and having perused the materials available on record, we do
not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, it is
made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other
case.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
A.K.Basheer,
Judge
vku/