IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29066 of 2009(C)
1. S.SANKARANKUTTY, 'RESHMI', ROYAL LANE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :02/12/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) No. 29066 of 2009 – C
—————————————-
Dated 2nd December, 2009
Judgment
The petitioner is a graduate in Engineering. He was
awarded the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Engineering by
the University of Calicut in the year 1978. After graduating in
Engineering, he worked in Tata Engineering and
M/s.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Limited for a total period
of about 26 years. He thereafter joined the SCMS School of
Engineering and Technology as Lecturer in Mechanical
Engineering.
2. While the petitioner was thus working as Lecturer in
SCMS School of Engineering and Technology, the Cochin
University of Science and Technology, hereinafter referred to
as ‘the University’ for short, invited applications from eligible
candidates for admission to various academic programmes for
the year 2009-2010 including M.Tech. (Part-time) programme
in Civil, Chemical and Mechanical Engineering. The last date
W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 2
for submission of applications was 4.4.2009. Since the
petitioner’s application was in order, the original of Ext.P5 hall
ticket was issued to him to appear for the Departmental
Admission Test held on 18.7.2009. Along with Ext.P5 hall
ticket, Ext.P6 memo was also issued calling upon the petitioner
to be present for the admission test along with attested copies
of certificates to prove his name, age, community,
qualifications and experience. The petitioner appeared for the
admission test along with attested copies of the relevant
documents including the experience certificates copies of which
are Exts.P2 and P3 respectively. After the admission test was
conducted, a rank list was also published in which the
petitioner was assigned rank No.8. Thereafter, Ext.P8 memo
dated 14.9.2009 was issued to the petitioner and other
candidates calling upon them to report at 9.30 a.m. on
9.10.2009 in the office of the Principal, School of Engineering,
Cochin University of Science and Technology. By Ext.P8
memo, the petitioner was called upon to produce inter alia the
original of the experience certificate already submitted at the
W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 3
time of departmental admission test. In Ext.P8, inter alia, it
was stated that failure to report at the appointed time and
submission of documents mentioned therein except the
transfer certificate and the no objection certificate at the time
of admission itself would result in forfeiture of the chance of
admission.
3. The petitioner reported in the office of the Principal of
School of Engineering before the stipulated time. The
petitioner had not however brought with him the original of the
experience certificate already submitted at the time of the
admission test. He was therefore not given admission. It is
stated that the original of the experience certificate produced
at the time of the departmental admission test was deposited
with the employer and that on noticing that the original thereof
had not been brought, though he requested the authorities to
give him half an hour’s time, the said request was not granted
and he was denied admission. It is stated that the petitioner
thereafter met the Registrar of the University and submitted
Ext.P9 letter at 1.30 p.m. on 9.10.2009 requesting for
W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 4
admission to the M.Tech. degree programme. The petitioner
thereafter submitted Ext.P10 representation to the Principal of
the School of Engineering pointing out the above facts and
requested for admission to the M.Tech. degree course. This
writ petition was thereafter filed on 14.10.2009 seeking a
direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner for the
M.Tech. (Part-time) degree course in Mechanical Engineering.
The petitioner also seeks incidental and allied reliefs.
4. The petitioner contends that the denial of an
opportunity to him to produce the original of the experience
certificate, a copy of which had already been produced at the
time of departmental admission test is arbitrary and illegal. He
submits that he was permitted to appear for the departmental
admission test on being satisfied that he was eligible to appear
for the examination and that as the attested copy of the
experience certificate had already been produced on the day
the departmental admission test was held, the official
respondents ought to have given him time to produce the
originals thereof which were in the custody of the employer at
W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 5
Muttom near Aluva.
5. Respondents 1 to 2 have filed a counter affidavit
contending inter alia that as the petitioner did not bring the
original of the experience certificates at the time of admission,
he forfeited his chance of admission. It is contended that ten
marks were awarded based on the experience claimed by the
petitioner and that as the original of experience certificate was
not made available to substantiate his claim for the award of
ten marks for experience, they were not in a position to verify
whether the petitioner was eligible for admission based on the
marks including the marks awarded for experience. It is also
contended that on the terms of Ext.P8 memo, the candidate
should produce all the documents mentioned therein except
the transfer certificate and no objection certificate at the time
of admission itself. The respondents also contend that by
Ext.P8 production of essential certificates alone was insisted
and that if the petitioner’s request had been granted it would
have resulted in injustice to the candidates ranked below the
petitioner who had reported with all the relevant documents as
W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 6
directed in Ext.P8. The respondents further state that Sri. Jose
Sheril D’Cotha, rank No.7 in Ext.P7 rank list who is working in
the very same institution as the petitioner had produced all the
certificates stipulated in Ext.P8 on 9.10.2009 itself and that he
was given admission. The counter affidavit proceeds to stated
that all the 15 seats for the M.Tech. degree course in
Mechanical Engineering have been filled up, that the classes
commenced on 19.10.2009 and that there is no vacant seat
against which the petitioner can be given admission.
6. I heard Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, the learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner and
Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, the learned standing counsel
appearing for the University. I have also gone through the
pleadings and the materials on record. By Ext.P8 memo which
the petitioner received in time, the petitioner was directed to
report at 9.30 a.m. on 9.10.2009 in the office of the Principal,
School of Engineering, Cochin University of Science and
Technology. By Ext.P8, the petitioner was directed to report
along with the originals of various documents including the
W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 7
experience certificate, a copy of which had already been
submitted at the time of the departmental admission test. In
Ext.P8, it was inter alia stipulated that failure to report at the
appointed time and failure to submit the documents mentioned
therein except the transfer certificate and the no objection
certificate at the time of admission would result in forfeiture of
the chance of admission. Though the petitioner reported at
9.30 a.m., he did not have with him the original of the
experience certificate submitted at the time of the
departmental admission test. His turn for admission arose at
11.30 a.m. Since he did not have the original of the
experience certificate, he was not given admission. The
petitioner does not dispute the fact that he was awarded
marks for experience also. He does not also dispute the fact
that at the time of the departmental admission test, only a
photostat copy of the experience certificate was produced.
The petitioner has not been able to establish that before he
was permitted to participate in the departmental admission
test, the original of the experience certificate was compared
W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 8
with the photostat copy produced by him. In my opinion, as
the eligibility of the petitioner for admission to the M.Tech.
(Part-time) degree course depends on the marks awarded in
the examination and also for experience, it was necessary for
him to produce the original of the experience certificate a copy
of which had already been submitted at the time of the
departmental admission test. The stipulation that the original
of the experience certificate already produced at the time of
departmental admission test should be produced, is one
intended to ensure that a different experience certificate is not
produced at the time of admission. Though the petitioner
contends that the wordings of Ext.P8 created a confusion in his
mind as regards the production of the original of the
experience certificate, on a plain reading of Ext.P8, I am not
able to subscribe to the petitioner’s contention that the
contents of Ext.P8 are in any way misleading. The petitioner
who is working as Lecturer in an Engineering College cannot in
my opinion plead that the stipulation in Ext.P8 that the original
of the experience certificate that had been produced at
W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 9
the time of the departmental admission test should be
produced at the time of admission was misleading. The
petitioner alone can be blamed for not producing the original of
the experience certificate. Further, the consequences of not
producing the original of the experience certificate are set out
in Ext.P8 itself. The petitioner’s colleague who is working in
the very same institution who is ranked immediately above the
petitioner had produced the original of the experience
certificate. Therefore, in my opinion, the respondents cannot
be blamed for not giving admission to the petitioner when his
turn for admission arose on 9.10.2009. The petitioner alone
can be held liable for the non-production of the original of the
experience certificate. As rightly pointed out by the
respondents, any concession extended to the petitioner would
have resulted in injustice to candidates who had complied with
the stipulations in Ext.P8 and had reported in time along with
the originals of the various documents referred to in Ext.P8. I
therefore find no merit in the contention raised by the
petitioner that the official respondents ought to have given him
W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 10
time to collect the original of the experience certificate from
the employer and produce it before the Principal of the School
of Engineering.
I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ
petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa