Single judge of Kerala HC disposed of writ petitions challenging a Vice-Chancellor's order modifying B. Pharm promotion procedures. The court held that Section 10(17) of the M.G. University Act requires proof of an emergency.
Exhibit P28, the order dated 29/11/2008 modifying promotion regulations, set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931
WP(C).No. 2715 of 2009(W)
PETITIONERS:
BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
RESPONDENTS:
WP(C).No. 2715 /2009
ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM FOR R4
SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R1 TO R3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 6176 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 2715 /2009
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P3: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P4: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P5: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P6: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P7: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P8: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 8TH D PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P9: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P10: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 10TH PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P11: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 11TH PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P12: | A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 12TH PETITIONER DATED NIL. |
| EXHIBIT P13: | A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 21/11/2008. |
| EXHIBIT P14: | A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 21/11/2008. |
| EXHIBIT P15: | A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 21/11/2008. |
| EXHIBIT P16: | A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 21/11/2008. |
| EXHIBIT P17: | A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 21/11/2008. |
WP(C).No. 2715 /2009
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
scm
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
W.P.(C) Nos. 2715 ,6176,6366, 5642,6716 & 5952 of 2009
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009
JUDGMENT
In all these writ petitions, the issue raised are identical and therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I shall be referring to the facts as pleaded in W.P(C).No.2715/2009.
“ a) The results of the respective University
W.P.(C) No. 2715/2009 and other connected cases 2
examinations of a candidate will be announced only
after passing all the subjects in the examinations of the lower class.
b) A candidate is permitted to carry over 4 first year subjects (two theory and two practicals) to the second year, but shall pass the first year failed subjects before promotion to 3rd year.
c)The candidate is permitted to carry over 4 second year subjects (two theory and two practicals) to 3rd year. But shall pass the second year subjects before promotion to the 4th year.
d) The candidate is permitted to carry over 4 subjects(two theory and two practicals) of 3rd year to final year. But the result will be declared only after passing all the 3rd year subjects.”
by first year B Pharm students, the promotion procedure was modified by the Vice Chancellor subject to ratification of the Academic Council of the University by Exhibit P25 dated
W.P.(C) No. 2715/2009 and other connected cases 3
11/01/2006. The relevant portion of the order reads as under;
“Candidates who have registered for the
University examination of a class will be eligible for promotion to the next higher class. But he/she will be eligible to appear for the examination of the higher class only after passing in all subjects in the lower class.”
ratified by Academic Council of the University in its meeting
held on 13/12/2006, and was notified by Exhibit P26. While the matters stood thus, it would appear that the Academic Council of the University vide its Minutes dated 6/08/2008 constituted a Sub Committee to modify the regulations of the B Pharm Course and Sub Committee by its Minutes dated 24/11/2008 resolved to amend the promotion procedure. Subsequently, Vice Chancellor accorded sanction to the amendments, exercising his powers under Section 10(17) of the M.G. University Act. Accordingly, the University issued Exhibit P28 order dated 29/11/2008. Relevant portion of which reads as under;
W.P.(C) No. 2715/2009 and other connected cases 4
A student who has minimum 80% attendance
and who has appeared in the theory and practical internal/ sessional examinations in the respective year is eligible to appear in the University examination.
Promotion Procedure:
W.P.(C) No. 2715/2009 and other connected cases 5
class only after passing the second year papers completely.”
“ If at any time, except when the Syndicate or
6
W.P.(C) No. 2715/2009 and other connected cases
the Academic Council is in session, the ViceChancellor is satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring him to take immediate action involving the exercise of any power vested in the Syndicate or the Academic Council by or under this Act, the ViceChancellor may take such action as he deems fit and shall, at the next session of the Syndicate or the Academic Council, as the case may be, report the action taken by him to that authority for such action as it may consider necessary [and that authority may, after considering the action taken by the ViceChancellor is of the view that such action shall not have been taken by him, refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final.]
W.P.(C) No. 2715/2009 and other connected cases
7
Therefore, existence of an emergency requiring immediate action for exercise of the powers of the Academic Council is a condition precedent for the Vice Chancellor to exercise his power under Section 10(17) of the Act.
W.P.(C) No. 2715/2009 and other connected cases
8
power. Holding that there was not even a plea regarding the existence of emergency, much less about its nature, the court interfered with the exercise of power. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Delhi High Court, interpreting Section 11 of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Leelakrishnan Vs. Cochin University [1997(1) KLT 281] held that power under Section 11(11) is to be exercised only when an emergency arises and sparingly and only when the proposal will not brook the delay till the Syndicate meets.
W.P.(C) No. 2715/2009 and other connected cases 9
amendment of regulation and the Committee has recommended amendment, which was approved by the Vice Chancellor subject to ratification by the Academic Council. It is stated this is the usual procedure followed by the University. In my view this explanation is totally unsatisfactory and at any rate does not answer the requirement of Section 10(17) of the Act to sustain Exhibit P28.
Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, I set aside Exhibit P28, order.
W.P.(C) No. 2715/2009 and other connected cases 10
In view of the Judgment in WP(C) No.2715/2009, Writ
Petition Nos. 6716/2009, 6366/2009, 5642/2009, 6716/2009, 5952/2009 will also stand disposed of accordingly.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
scm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Vice-Chancellor could validly exercise emergency powers under Section 10(17) of the M.G. University Act to modify university regulations.
Whether circumstances justifying the exercise of extraordinary powers by the Vice-Chancellor existed to sustain the impugned order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M. N. Gupta Vs. University of DelhiRelied on¶98
M. N. Gupta Vs. University of Delhi [AIR 1992 Delhi 212] · Who else cites this
Dr. Leelakrishnan Vs. Cochin UniversityFollowed¶101
Dr. Leelakrishnan Vs. Cochin University [1997(1) KLT 281]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
George Thomas Junior and others
The Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam
Antony Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
