IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29/08/2002
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN
WRIT PETITION NO. 20424 of 2002
AND
WMP.No. 28264 OF 2002
J.Maneksha Babu ..Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Tirunelveli
2. The Controller of Examinations
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
Tirunelveli
3. Noorul Islam College of Engineering,
Kumaracoil, Thuckalay
Kanyakumari District rep. by its
Chairman. ..Respondents
For petitioner:: Mr.A.L.Somayaji Senior Counsel
Mr.Goldwern and Mr.B.Vijaya Kumar
For respondents: Mr.Subbiah for RR1 and 2 Mr.S.
Parthasarathy for R.3
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, as stated therein.
:O R D E R
The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus to call for the proceedings of the second respondent in
No.MSUgE&R/2001-2002 dated 30.1.2002 and No.MSU/E&R/2002 dated 6.5.2002 quash
the same and consequently permit the petitioner herein to continue with his
M.Sc., (Computer TechonologygP.G.Degree course) without any interruption in
the first respondent University and for other consequential remedies.
2. On 13.6.2002, the writ petition was admitted and rule nisi was
ordered. The respondents have been served. The respondents have entered
appearance and filed their counter. With the consent of counsel on either
side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner who has acquired BCA Degree (Bachelor of Computer
Applications) applied to the third respondent college for admission to M.Sc
Computer Technology course (Post Graduate Course) for which course of study
third respondent college has been affiliated to the first respondent
University. It is aleged that The order of affiliation does not contain any
prescription with respect to minimum eligibility criteria for admission to
M.Sc computer technology course is concerned. There is no stipulation as to
the minimum eligibility for admission to M.Sc.Computer Technology course. The
petitioner claims that he had studied all the relevant subjects in B.C.A
and therefore he is eligible to be admitted to M.Sc.computer Technology
course. The third respondent college entertained the application submitted
for admission to M.S.C., computer Technology course for the year 2001-2002 and
the petitioner was admitted to the first year course. The petitioner also
appeared in the first semester examinations for the M.Sc Computer Technology.
The petitioner also states that he has completed one year and he has to appear
for the second semester examination for the first year computer technology.
The second respondent by the impugned communication dated 6.5.2002 addressed
the third respondent college intimating that the petitioner is not eligible to
be admitted for M.Sc Computer Technology course as he is not possessed of the
eligibility qualification for the admission. The petitioner refers to
syllabus for the B.C.A tries to justify that he possess the equivalent
qualification and that it should be construed that he possess the
qualification prescribed for admission to M.Sc.Computer Technology course. It
is the claim of the petitioner that he is eligible for admission to M.Sc
computer technology. The petitioner also claims that in Periyar University
the minimum eligibility for admission has been prescribed as Bachelor of
Computer Application as one of the qualification and therefore there is no
reason either for the first respondent university to fix or stipulate a
different eligibility. The respondents are estopped from going back and
abruptly interfere with the studies of the petitioner. The petitioner is
sought to be disqualified on trivial and non est grounds or reasons. Being
aggrieved by the impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed to
quash the impugned order and for consequential directions to enable the
petitioner to continue his M.Sc computer technology course under the first
respondent university in the third respondent college.
4. On behalf of the second respondent a counter has been filed. It
is contended that as per the statutes, the first respondent University has to
sue and to be sued through the Registrar and not through the Vice Chancellor
and therefore the writ petition as framed against the first respondent is bad
in law. It is alleged that it is only the third respondent who has brought
out the present writ petition in the name of the petitioner. The third
respondent was granted permissiong affiliation to start M.Sc Computer
Technology Course during academic year 2001-2002 for the first time. Even
while granting affiliationg permission it has been prescribed that the
eligibility for admission to the said M.Sc Computer Technology course is a
pass in B.Sc computer technology or B.Sc Information Technology with three
years course with the subjects of (1) Principles of Programming Languages, (2)
Object oriented Programming through C++, (e) Advanced Data Base Management
System, (4) Software Engineering, (5) C++ programming Laboratory, and (6)
Oracle Laboratory. When the eligibility qualification has been prescribed, no
question of considering any equivalent qualification would arise. The
Principals of all the affiliated colleges including the third respondent
college are members of the Senate of the first respondent University and are
represented in Standing committee on academic affairs and Syndicate. Contrary
to the regulations the third respondent had admitted the petitioner to the
M.Sc Computer Technology course who has no eligibility for admission as per
the regulations of the University. Such admission has been given deliberately
by the third respondent college to earn money by way of fees apparently
knowing well that there would not be enough candidates possessing the
prescribed qualification to take the course. In any event the writ petitioner
has also not secured 50% marks prescribed. The third respondent college
having illegally admitted the petitioner apparently in order to allow the
petitioner to complete the first semester and to register for the first
semester examinations delayed sending of application of the petitioner for
consideration as to his eligibility for admission till the end of September,
2001 though he has been admitted during July 2001. On 27.9.2001, the third
respondent purported to forward the application of the petitioner along with
few others for deciding the eligibility of the petitioner. While scrutinising
the application of the petitioner it was found that he is not eligible for
admission to M.Sc Computer Technology Course as per the University’s
Regulations and the same was communicated to the third respondent college,
besides the results of the first semester examination was withheld.
5. The third respondent collage by its letter dated 5.2.2002
addressed the University requesting for relaxation of the admission of the
petitioner as a special case which was not acceptable to the University and it
was negatived. Hall ticket has been issued as a matter of routine on the
basis of list of candidates furnished by the third respondent college. Mere
issuance of hall ticket will not mean that the petitioner has been admitted
validly. The moment the ineligibility was brought to the notice of the second
respondent and the results of the examination were withheld. When the
petitioner being ineligible to be admitted cannot seek the relief of writ of
certiorari and mandamus as prayed for.
6. The syllabus structure for B.Sc., Computer Science and B.SC
Computer Technology as well as BCA are not identical. The syllabus for both
degree courses are as prescribed by the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher
Studies and the syllabus are different for the two Branches. In B.Sc.
Computer science, the emphasis is more on mathematics while in B.Sc., computer
technology emphasis is on numerical methods and electronics. It is incorrect
to state that B.C.A is a prescribed qualification for admission to M.S.C.
Computer Technology in Periyar University. The third respondent was very much
aware and deliberately admitted the petitioner who is ineligible and it is
only the third respondent who should be made liable for the damage suffered by
the petitioner as otherwise it will be difficult for the University to
discipline the Institutions run by the private management.
7. The third respondent appeared through counsel and also filed a
counter. In the counter after referring to the grant of permissiong
affiliation the third respondent points out that the affiliation order do not
contain any information regarding the minimum eligibility criteria for
admission to M.Sc., Computer Technology. The writ petitioner submitted his
application for admission and an entrance test was conducted and based upon
that he was selected and admitted and joined as one of the eleven candidates.
The third respondent on 27.9.2001 forwarded the application for issuance of
eligibility certificate and recognition of the candidates including the
petitioner. The first respondent issued hall ticket to the petitioner and
other students for appearance in the first semester examination. The
petitioner has joined the second semester class as well. The first respondent
issued a letter stating that the petitioner is not eligible for admission to
M.Sc., computer technology course since the petitioner is a candidate with
B.C.A. Degree alone. The third respondent submitted a representation for
reconsideration while adding that the qualification possessed by the
petitioner is equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the first
respondent university for admission to M.Sc., Computer Technology. The second
respondent on 6.5.2002 informed the third respondent that the petitioner has
not secured 50% marks in part III of BCA course and as such he is not eligible
for admission to M.Sc computer technology and the first year examination
results was withheld. A representation has been submitted to the Vice
Chancellor for favourable consideration and relaxation and no order has been
passed by the Vice Chancellor. The second respondent has orally informed that
there cannot be a reconsideration and that the petitioner will not be
permitted to sit for the second semester examinations. At the time of
granting affiliation no eligibility or minimum eligibility marks has been
prescribed by the University and therefore the first and second respondents
are estopped from rejecting the application of the petitioner. The admision
of the writ petitioner is a bona fide act on the part of the third respondent
college.
8. Heard Mr.A.L.Somayajee, learned senior counsel for Mr.Goldwern and
Mr.B.Vijayakumar appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Subbiah, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.parthasarathy, learned counsel
appearing for the third respondent.
9. The points that arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether the petitioner possess the prescribed eligibility
qualification for being admitted to the M.Sc., Computer Technology Course?
(ii) Whether the respondents are estopped by their conduct?
Both the points could be considered together.
10. Mr.A.L.Somayajee, learned senior counsel contended that the
University has not framed regulations prescribing the eligibility
qualification for admission to M.Sc., Computer Technology and specifically
contended that in the absence of any regulation, it is not open to the
respondents 1 and 2 to refuse admission o the petitioner who is eligible to be
admitted to M.Sc., Computer Technology course. Admittedly the petitioner has
passed B.C.A (Bachelor of Computer Application) alone and not Bachelor of
Computer Technology. This court called upon Mr.Subbiah, learned counsel
appearing for respondents 1 and 2 to produce the regulations framed by the
University with respect to M. Sc., Computer Technology course. After taking
adjournment, the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 produced the regulations
and scheme for examination for M.Sc., Computer Technology. A copy of the
Appendix No.C-2 of the first respondent University Regulation was produced.
As seen from the Appendix No.C-2, which is a part of the Regulations and
scheme of examination, the eligibility qualification prescribed for admission
to M.Sc Computer Technology is a pass in B.Sc computer TechnologygB.Sc.,
Information Technology. The said regulation also prescribes that the
candidates for admission to the first year for the two year M.Sc., Computer
Technology shall be required to have a pass in three year degree programming
in B.Sc., Computer Technology or B.Sc., Information Technology. The learned
sen ior counsel also was furnished with a copy of the regulation framed by the
first respondent University. Therefore it is clear that the first
respondent-University has prescribed the eligibility qualification for
admission to M.Sc., Computer Technology course and the contention to the
contra cannot be sustained.
11. It follows automatically that unless the petitioner possess the
eligibility qualification he could not be admitted to the M.Sc., Computer
Technology course. Concedingly, the petitioner has not acquired a degree in
B.Sc., computer technology or B.Sc., Information Technology. But he has only
passed BCA (Bachelor of Computer Application) Therefore the petitioner is
ineligible to be admitted.
12. It is rather extraordinary on the part of the third respondent to
have admitted the writ petitioner and has gone to the extent of supporting the
claim of the petitioner. The third respondent was very much aware of the
minimum eligibility qualification prescribed for admission, yet for reasons
best known it has chosen to admit the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by
the second respondent the third respondent had admitted the petitioner with
full knowledge with a view to make an unlawful gain and the act of the third
respondent has to be reprimanded a or deprecated. Therefore the contention
advanced by the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 merits acceptance.
13. As regards the plea of estoppel, the third respondent having
admitted the petitioner had sent the application for verification belatedly
and in the meanwhile the first semester examination hall ticket has been
issued on the basis of examination application and list of candidates
forwarded by the third respondent college and immediately after verification
as to the eligibility of the petitioner for admission, the second respondent
not only withheld the results for the first semester examination, but also
intimated the third respondent well in time that the third respondent has
admitted a candidate who is ineligible. Even thereafter the third respondent
persisted and sought for relaxation or accommodation while pleading for the
writ petitioner and the said request has also been rejected immediately. The
plea of estoppel cannot be maintained against the first or second respondent
and such a plea against the third respondent is unsustainable as the third
respondent has colluded or acted hand in glove with the writ petitioner. At
any rate the third respondent is not the competent authority to decide the
eligibility qualification prescribed by the first respondent university for
admission to M.Sc., Computer Technology. Hence the plea of estoppel also
fails.
14. The learned senior counsel vehemently contended that the
petitioner be permitted to continue on sympathetic grounds. This court is
unable to sustain such a persuasive request on sympathetic consideration,
which cannot be a ground to allow the petitioner to continue his studies when
he is ineligible. This court shall not be a party to an illegality. So also
the respondents 1 and 2. This court also will not be justified in permitting
the petitioner to appear for the next semester examination or issuing
directions. The petitioner has to blame himself or to blame the third
respondent and if he has got any grievance he has to proceed against the third
respondent for appropriate relief of damages or compensation as the case may
be.
15. The question whether the petitioner who has not been admitted
validly could be permitted to take up examination has to be answered against
the petitioner in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in CBSE
and another Vs. P.Sunil kumar and others reported in 1998 (5) SCC 377 where
the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of allowing students provisionally
for the examination conducted by the Board or the University and then
ultimately lending a hand to regularize their appearance by taking a
sympathetic view. In this respect the Supreme Court held thus:-
“Whether the High Court was justified in issuing these impugned directions?
This question no longer remains res integra. This court in several cases
deprecated the practice of allowing students to appear provisionally in the
examinations of the Board or the University and then ultimately regularising
the same by taking a sympathetic view of the matter. In the case of A.P.
Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh, (1968 2 SC
667) this court held that the court will not be justified in issuing direction
to the University to protect the interest of the students who had been
admitted to the medical college in clear transgression of the provisions of
the University Act and the regulations of the University. It was also
observed that the court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey
the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the
University itself as that would be destructive of the rule of law. In the
case of Sate of T.N. Vs. St.Joseph Teachers’ Training Institute, this court
held that the direction of admitting students of unauthorized educational
institutions and permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked
on with disfavour and the students of unrecognized institutions who are not
legally entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Education
Department of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and
the High Court committed an error in granting permission to such students to
appear at the public examination. All these cases were again considered by a
there-Judge bench of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas
Sahebroa Roundale (1992 4 SCC 435) and it was held that the students of
unrecognized and unauthorized educational institutions could not have been
permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to appear in
examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. The court
ultimately struck down the direction issued by the High Court. In yet another
case, Guru Nank Dev University Vs. Parminder Kr.Bansal (1993 4 SCC 401)
another three-judge Bench of this court interfered with the interim order
passed by the High Court to allow students to undergo internship course even
without passing the MBBS examination. The court observed:
“We are afraid that this kin of administration of interlocutory
remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced does no service
to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic
matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as
interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of
degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic
discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic
life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the
candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the
interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious
complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case,
the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an
accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders
cannot be allowed to stand. The courts should not embarrass academic
authorities by themselves taking over their functions.”
16. In the light of the above discussion, this court holds that the
petitioner is not entitled to any remedy and the writ petition is dismissed.
17. Normally on facts this court should have awarded cost against the
petitioner, however, taking a considerate view, this court is not awarding
cost as cost, if at all, has to be awarded only against the third
respondent-College. Consequently, connected WPMP is also dismissed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
gkv
29-08-2002
copy to:-
1. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Tirunelveli
2. The Controller of Examinations
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
Tirunelveli
3. Noorul Islam College of Engineering,
Kumaracoil, Thuckalay
Kanyakumari District rep. by its
Chairman
Order in
W.P.No: 20424 of 2002