IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38617 of 2010(B)
1. SASHI M., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. ACADEMIC COUNSEL,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 38617 of 2010 B
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner made an application to the respondent
University for an equivalency certificate for M.Sc Computer
Science (Distance Education) (Lateral Entry) to the Degree
obtained by him from Annamalai University. When he made
the application, the University issued him Ext.P3
communication dated 01-12-2010, requiring the petitioner to
produce a certificate from the Annamalai University to the
effect that the contact programme and the examination of the
course pursued by him was conducted within the territorial
jurisdiction of the University, as per the rules of the Distance
Education Council/UGC, along with the scheme and syllabus
of the Lateral Entry Course, duly attested by the Registrar of
the said University. It is challenging Ext.P3, this writ petition is
filed.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that, in view of
W.P.(C) No.38617/2010
: 2 :
Ext.P4, which evidences that the UGC has granted
recognition to the Annamalai University, demand made in
Ext.P3 is illegal. I am not able to appreciate the said
contention. Obviously, the Annamalai University could not
have conducted a programme outside its territorial
jurisdiction. If that be so, when an application is made for
equivalency certificate, the respondent University is perfectly
within its power to ask for a certificate of the nature
mentioned in Ext.P3 and on receipt of the said
communication, it was for the petitioner to have obtained the
certificate and produce the same before the respondent
University to enable it to consider the petitioner’s application
for the issuance of the equivalency certificate. Therefore, I do
not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P3.
The writ petition will, therefore, stand disposed of,
directing that it will be open to the petitioner to produce the
certificate mentioned in Ext.P3 and that, on production of the
same, the first respondent University will consider the
W.P.(C) No.38617/2010
: 3 :
application made by the petitioner for equivalency certificate
and pass orders thereon without any further delay.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks