Guru Nanak Dev University Th.Registrar vs Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr

Punjab & Haryana, whereby the writ petition filed by the first 2

respondent herein was allowed approving his admission to the

LL.B. (three years professional) course at St. Soldier Law

College, Jalandhar, affiliated to the Appellant.

2. The Government of Punjab authorized Punjab University

to conduct a Common Entrance Test for selection of students

for admission to three year LL.B. (Professional) course for the

session commencing from 2004-2005, for the various colleges

affiliated to or run by the said University and the appellant

university. The first respondent appeared for the entrance test

held on 8.7.2004 and was declared successful. He attended

the counselling and was selected and was admitted to St.

Soldier Law College at Jalandar (second respondent) affiliated

to appellant university. He paid the tuition fee of Rs.25000/-

to the second respondent and attended college regularly. The

final examinations of first semester were held in December,

2004. After scrutinizing the records relating to the first

respondent, the appellant university registered the first

respondent for the examination with Roll No.4723. The first

respondent appeared for the first semester examination. 3

3. Thereafter, the appellant university wrote a letter dated

20.12.2004 informing the college that first respondent's basic

degree was M.A.(English) from Annamalai University through

Distance Education, which was not recognized by it and

therefore, his admission to LL.B. course should be cancelled.

The first respondent submitted a detailed representation

contending that his admission was valid. The appellant did

not agree and by letter dated 29.3.2005 directed the second

respondent college to cancel the admission of the first

respondent.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent filed a writ

petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana,

contending that he was eligible for admission as he possessed

a M.A. degree recognized as equivalent to M.A. degree of the

appellant-University and that his admission could not be

cancelled. The High Court accepted the contention of the first

respondent and directed that his admission to LL.B. course be 4

restored forthwith. The High Court rejected the contention of

the appellant that a bachelor's degree was a pre-condition for

admission to the LL.B course by holding that prescription of

M.A. was an alternative eligibility qualification for admission

to the course. These findings of the High Court are challenged

before us.

5. The academic qualification prescribed for admission to

three years LL.B professional course (vide Handbook of

Information)is as follows:

"Candidates who have passed bachelor's Degree of Guru Nanak Dev University or any other equivalent examination recognized as such by the University with not less than 45% marks; or Master's Degree of Guru Nanak Dev University or of any other University recognized as equivalent thereto."

6. The appellant-University submitted that a Bachelor's

degree is a must for admission, and the Master's degree of the

appellant University (or the equivalent) was considered as an

eligible qualification for admission, only where the candidate

had not secured 45% marks in the Bachelor's degree course. 5

7. This argument of the appellant-University is contested by

the first respondent, who appeared in person. According to

him, the provision relating to eligibility used the word "or"

between the two qualifications prescribed; and that indicated

that they were alternatives and possessing either of them

would make a candidate eligible. He submitted that as he

possessed M.A. (English) degree from the Annamalai

University, through Distance Education, under the Open

University System (OUS), he fulfilled the alternative

requirement prescribed, that is, a master's degree recognized

as equivalent to the master's degree of the appellant-

University and, therefore, he is eligible to get admission to

three years LL.B professional course.

8. The prescription of eligibility criteria is very clear. It

requires a Bachelor's degree with not less than 45 marks or a

Master's degree. The university's contention that the

candidate must have a Bachelor's degree and only if his marks 6

are less than 45% in the Bachelor's degree course, the

Master's degree was to be considered, would mean that the

word `or' should be substituted by the words `in the event of

the candidate not having 45 marks in Bachelor's degree'.

Reading such words into the provision is impermissible. The

word `or' is disjunctive. No doubt, in some exceptional

circumstances, the word `or' has been read as conjunctive as

meaning `and', where the context warranted it. But the word

`or' cannot obviously be read as referring to a conditional

alternative, when such condition is not specified. In view of

the provision relating to eligibility being unambiguous and

using the word `or', it is clear that a Master's degree without a

Bachelor's degree will satisfy the eligibility requirement.

9. The next contention of the university is that a person

without having a Bachelor's degree cannot have Master's

degree. They contend that even according to the criteria

prescribed by Annamalai University for admission to MA, only

persons who have BA or equivalent degree, are eligible for

admission. They rely on the following eligibility criterion 7

prescribed by Annamalai University for admission to MA

degree course:

"Candidates who have passed the B.A. or B.Sc. Or BOL or an examination of any other university, accepted by the Syndicate as equivalent thereto, with English under Part I/II/III, are eligible to join MA Degree course in English. Preference will be given to those who have studied English under Part III."

10. The Appellant University therefore contended that as the

first respondent did not possess a Bachelor's degree, the

Master's degree secured by him is irregular. On the other

hand, first respondent pointed out that the above eligibility

criteria prescribed by Annamalai University was for admission

to regular M.A. degree course or M.A. Correspondence Course;

and that the eligibility criteria for admission to Master's degree

programme under the Open University System (`OUS'), in the

Annamalai University - distance education, was as follows :

"Those who have completed the age of 21 as on 1st July of the year of admission and have subsequently passed the preparatory course examination are eligible for admission."

8 11. It is thus clear that under the OUS scheme, if a

candidate had passed the preparatory course examination for

admission to MA (English) literature, he need not have a basic

Bachelor's degree. It is true that normally a student cannot

enroll for a Master's degree course unless he has a basic

Bachelor's degree in the chosen subject. But some universities

may provide for enrolment to a Master's degree course without

a basic Bachelor's degree course, if certain requirements are

fulfilled. Annamalai University has in fact made such a

provision for enrolment to M.A. course by distance education

(OUS).

12. The last contention of the appellant university is that the

MA (OUS) qualification possessed by the first respondent is

not recognized as equivalent to the Master's degree of

appellant university. The appellant university has issued an

equivalency book containing the list of examinations of other

universities recognized by the appellant university. Clause (5)

of the said equivalency book reads thus :

9

"That correspondence courses conducted by other Universities/Boards/Bodies be recognized as equivalent to the corresponding (regular) examinations of this University provided that regular examinations of those Universities/Boards/ Bodies already stand recognized as equivalent to the corresponding examinations of this University (Academic Council, dated 16.1.1990)."

The said equivalency book also shows that MA examination of

Annamalai University is recognized as equivalent to MA

examination of appellant university. But that may not be

sufficient. The appellant university in its additional affidavit

has clarified that there are three types of courses, as under:

(i) Regular Courses;

(ii) Correspondence Courses: (where the University

directly sends the course material to the students. There is therefore direct contact of the university with the students).

(iii) Distance Education Courses: (where the University concerned designates a franchisee/associate institutions in the concerned local area and the course material is then given by the said franchisee/associate centre. There is no direct contact between students and the University). 10

13. The appellant university has categorically stated that

while regular courses and correspondence courses in MA

conducted by Annamalai university are recognized as

equivalent to the corresponding M.A. course of the appellant

university, M.A. (OUS) course through distance education

conducted by Annamalai university is not recognized by the

appellant university as equivalent to its M.A. course. The first

respondent has passed his M.A. (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 appellant university has

recognized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamalai University

through distance education as equivalent to M.A. of appellant

university. Thus it has to be held that first respondent does

not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for

admission to three year law course.

11

14. The first respondent made a faint attempt to contend

that the distance education system includes `correspondence

courses' and therefore recognition of M.A. (correspondence

course) as equivalent to M.A. course of appellant University,

would amount to recognition of M.A. - OUS (distance

education) course, as an equivalent. For this purpose, he

relied upon the definition of "distance education system" in

section 2(e) of 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 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.

15. Therefore the appeal of the University deserves to be

allowed. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court holding

that M.A. English degree (OUS) granted by Annamalai 12

University through distance education is equivalent to MA

degree of appellant university, is set aside.

16. However, on the peculiar facts of the case, the first

respondent is entitled to relief. The first respondent was

admitted through a Common Entrance Test process during

2004-2005. He was permitted to take the first semester

examinations by the university. He is not guilty of any

suppression or misrepresentation of facts. Apparently, there

was some confusion in the appellant university itself as to

whether the distance education course attended by the first

respondent was the same as correspondence course which

was recognized. The first respondent was informed that he

was not eligible, only after he took the first semester

examination. He has however also been permitted to continue

the course and has completed the course in 2007. He has

succeeded before the High Court. Now after four years, if it is

to be held that he is not entitled to admission, four years of

his career will be irretrievably lost. In the circumstances, it

will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the 13

benefit of admission which was initially accepted and

recognized by the appellant university. This Court in Shri

Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, (AIR 1976 SC

376), has observed that before issuing the admission card to a

student to appear in Part-I Law Examination, it was the duty

of the university authorities to scrutinize the papers; and

equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law

before submitting the form to the university to see that it

complied with all requirements; and if they did not take care

to scrutinize the papers, the candidature for the examinations

cannot be cancelled subsequently on the ground of non-

fulfilment of requirements. In Sanatan Gauda vs.

Berhampur University (AIR 1990 SC 1075), this Court held

where the candidate was admitted to the Law course by Law

College and University also permitted him to appear for Pre-

Law and Intermediate Law examinations, the college and the

university were estopped from withholding his result on the

ground that he was ineligible to take admission in Law course.

Having regard to the above we are of the view that irrespective

of the fact that M.A. English (OUS) degree secured by first 14

respondent from Annamalai University through distance

education, may not be recognized as an equivalent to the

Master's degree of the appellant university, his admission to

the law course should not be cancelled. The appellant

University is directed to treat the admission as regular

admission and permit the first respondent to appear for the

law examination and if he has already appeared for the

examination, declare his result. The appeal is disposed of

accordingly.

............................

CJI (K G Balakrishnan)

.............................J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi October 21, 2008.