Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr vs Gis Jose & Ors

2. It is once again, a judgment has come from the High Court in

complete derogation of the observations of this Court against the

compromising of the educational standards in the matter of admissions to a

particular course by showing unnecessary sympathies. The Mahatma

Gandhi University has come up against the judgment of the Division Bench

of Kerala High Court whereby the Division Bench allowing the appeal of a

student, has directed the University to declare the withheld result of the

student. The direction though was, of course, without creating precedence,

as a special case.

2

3. It so happened that Petitioner, Gis Jose was admitted to the M.Sc.

Computer Science course. She had secured only 53.3% marks in her

qualifying examination against the minimum requirement of cut-off marks,

which had been fixed by the university as 55%. Obviously in total

derogation of this fact, the student was admitted. The error, when found by

the University, the Controller of Examination wrote a letter dated

01.11.2004 to the Principal, B.P.C. College, Piravom, pointing out the

irregular admission to the M.Sc. Computer Science course. It was pointed

out that the student's application for Ist and IInd semester Examinations,

held in April and July, 2004 respectively, were already rejected on the

ground that the student had scored only 53 % marks and her admission

was in violation of the Admission Rules framed by the University and still

the Principal had allowed the student to continue in M.Sc. Computer

Science to complete the course and to write her examination. It was

pointed out that the University was viewing the matter very seriously and

the Principal was further directed to cancel the admission given to the

student and to report the matter within 10 days. It is obvious from this letter

that the earlier applications dated 22.4.04 and 26.7.04 were also rejected

by the University. A memo was ultimately sent on 25.2.2005 and the

student was informed that the University had rejected her request for

continuing studies in M.Sc. Computer Science in the college. This was on

the basis of the Minutes of the Academic Council Meeting dated

23.12.2004 where the Academic Council had refused to allow the student

to continue her studies and yet the student was allowed to continue with 3

the course in complete and total derogation of the directions given by the

Controller of Examinations.

4. The student came before the Kerala High Court by way of a writ

petition which was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge of that Court, as

the student did not have the basic qualification for admission to the course

in accordance with the University Regulations. It was also found that

when the application for the Ist semester examination was submitted, the

same was not accepted by the University and the same was the fate of the

IInd semester examination also yet the student was permitted to continue

her studies.

5. An appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Single

Judge and the Division Bench has allowed the appeal. For that purpose,

the Division Bench relied on the earlier Division Bench decision of that

Court in W.A. No. 1040 of 2003. In that, the Division Bench had taken the

view that since the student had completed the course and had taken the

examination, the results would have to be declared. There the Court had

also taken the view that at that juncture, the student could not be singled

out. The Division Bench "further in view of the inconsistency" chose to

grant relief and further observed that this did not adversely affect the

interest of others and that it was too late for anybody to contend that by

treating her admission in nullity, somebody would have gained anything. 4

The Division Bench also took the view that the student had not

misrepresented regarding her marks and yet she was given the admission

as a normal student.

6. It was further observed by the Division Bench that a strict approach

"disrobbing off the fruits of her effort could have had harsh results." The

Division Bench also agreed that such irregular admissions were likely to

pave the way for foul play in the hands of unscrupulous college

management, and yet further proceeded to grant relief to the student, in

view of the fact that the student had taken the examinations of semesters

Ist to IVth and had undergone the full course. We are at complete loss to

understand as to how such course could have been taken. In fact, the

unscrupulous college management had obviously given an irregular

admission and because of that admission, at least one student was

deprived of the admission to the M.Sc. Computer Course, so also it was a

complete discrimination between the respondent and other students, who

had also scored 53.3% marks and were not given admission on that count.

The matters do not stop here. The Controller of the Examination had

subsequently rejected her application for the first and second semester

examination which took place in April and July, 2004 and yet the college

proceeded to allow her to write her examination of those semesters and

also continued her admission. It cannot be assumed that the students did 5

not have the idea of all these irregularities. It was obvious that there was

an unholy hand shake of the student and the college authorities.

7. It was contended by Shri B.V. Deepak, learned counsel appearing

for the student that the Vice Chancellor had allowed her to continue with

the course. However, there is nothing on record to support this fact.

Further, such permission was clearly incorrect if at all given. In the

subsequent meeting of the Academic Council, the student was not

permitted to continue with the course. All these factors were completely

ignored by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment . Therefore, at

least after the Academic Council had rejected the student's request, she

could not have been allowed to continue. This did not happen and the

college allowed her to take the further examinations for III and IV

semesters also. We totally disapprove of all this.

8. Learned counsel for the student relied on a judgment of this Court in

the case of Selin Mary Mammen vs. Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors.

[Civil Appeal No.689 of 2004 delivered on 3.2.2004], a judgment delivered

by Lahoti, J. Apart from the fact that the factual position is different in that

case, there were no timely notices given regarding the irregular admission

to the student as in the present case.

9. The misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total

breach of the Rules. In our opinion, that is precisely what has happened. 6

Such a course was disapproved by this Court in Regional Officer, CBSE

vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Others [(2003) 7 SCC 719]. In

paragraph 6 of the Judgment, this Court observed as follows :

"6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases, it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions........... ".

10. In the present case, the college where the student was admitted, in

breach of all possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but

also to write the examination which was totally illegal.

11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the

Division Bench and restore the judgment of the Single Bench dismissing

the Writ Petition.

.............................J.

(Ashok Bhan)

..............................J. (V.S. Sirpurkar) New Delhi;

September 8, 2008.

7

Digital Performa

Case No. : SLP (C) No. 3569 of 2007

Date of Decision : 08.09.2008

Cause Title : Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr.

Vs.

Gis Jose & Ors.

Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

Judgment delivered by : Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

Nature of Judgment : Reportable