Allowed

Nithya Gopinath v. University of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jul 2013WA/1017/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant, second rank holder in MBA and first in M.Phil entrance, denied admission due to late MBA results she could not control. High Court allowed her to complete M.Phil course, treating admission as regular, noting no other candidate would be displaced. Declared not a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Appellant permitted to complete M.Phil course; University to treat admission as regular; one seat kept vacant.

Nithya Gopinath Vs University of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2013/4TH SRAVANA, 1935

¶7

WA.No. 1017 of 2013

¶8

WP(C) 5278/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13/6/13

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER:

¶10

NITHYA GOPINATH

¶11

NITHYA NIVAS, EDAYARANMULA PO, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.JACOB P.ALEX

¶13

SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.

¶16

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN KERALA (UNIVERSITY OF KERALA) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, KARIAVATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY.

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-072013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J.

¶20

W.A.No. 1017 OF 2013

¶21

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2013

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Manjula Chellur,C.J.

¶24

Appellant who was unsuccessful before the

¶25

learned Single Judge is before us seeking following reliefs as claimed in the writ petition.

¶26

i) Declare that the petitioner is eligible to be considered for admission to the M.Phil Degree course offered by the 1^st respondent as per Ext.P2 notification.

¶27

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P7 Rank List and quash the same to the extent it does not include the name of petitioner in the order of merit.

¶28

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to recast Ext.P7 rank list after reckoning the marks obtained by petitioner in the order of merit and to consider petitioner for

¶29

WA.1017/13

¶30

¶31

admission to M.Phil Degree course (2012-13) accordingly.

¶32

iv) Pass such other and further orders that this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the appellant joined MBA

¶34

two year course, for the academic year 2010-12 and final examination was in the month of July, 2012. With an ambition of securing higher Degree, she applied for M.Phil as per the notification dated 5/12/2012. Though the last date for submission of application was 21/12/2012, it came to be extended to 31/12/2012. To the misfortune of the appellant, her MBA examination results were not declared even as on the last date of submission of application for M.Phil course, i.e. on 31/12/2012. However, indicating the same she applied for the said course and the results of MBA came to be announced only on 16/1/2013. Entrance test for M.Phil course came to be conducted on 11/2/2013. The appellant got her MBA marks sheet also on 11/2/2013 which she

¶35

¶36

WA.1017/13

¶37

submitted to the authorities and even wrote the entrance examination for M.Phil.

¶38

It is not in dispute that she secured second rank so far as MBA in the respondent University and stood first in the entrance examination conducted on 11/2/2013 for M.Phil course. Subsequently, admission to M.Phil course was denied on the ground that as on the date of submission of her application she did not pass MBA course. It is not in dispute that she pursued MBA and M.Phil course in the same University. Declaration of the results was not within the province of the candidates who wrote the examination. It may not be due to intentional negligence or carelessness on the part of University as well, as the delay in declaring the results could be due to various reasons not within the control of the University some time.

¶39

During the course of arguments, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University brought to our notice that it is a great task for the University to get

¶40

¶41

WA.1017/13

¶42

staff to conduct evaluation work as first preference would be given to Government and aided colleges. Therefore, on account of giving preference to such colleges, there is shortage or deficit in the staff who could attend the valuation work. It is also noted that so far as MBA course, valuation work pertaining to the batch of the appellant came to be completed as early as on 24/12/2012, as indicated in the counter affidavit of the University. The University could have announced the results immediately at least before the last date for submission of application for M.Phil course. A student who secured second rank in MBA and first place in the entrance examination for admission to M.Phil course is faced with a situation of not getting admission on account of no fault of hers. However, considering the facts and circumstances, she was allowed to attend the classes provisionally and further one seat, out of six seats for M.Phil course was directed to be kept vacant by virtue of interim order of the learned Single Judge. As on

¶43

¶44

WA.1017/13

¶45

today, the course is over by five months. Another seven months course is remaining. Even if she is not allowed to continue the course, one seat remains unfilled. Therefore, another student/candidate would not be displaced by continuing the appellant to pursue her M.Phil course. Purely based on the factual situation, we allow the writ appeal permitting the appellant to complete her M.Phil course and respondent University shall treat the admission of the appellant as regular and no impediment whatsoever, shall come in the way of her in completing the course and taking final examination. It is made clear that this shall not be treated as a precedent in future.

¶46

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶47

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶48

uj.

Nithya Gopinath v. University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithya Gopinath v. University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukumar N Oommen Vs Dr.I Vijaya Kumar

M.K.S.Earth Movers, Rep. by Its Propriet Vs Tahsildar, Ponnani and Others

The State of Kerala Vs Padmini

Siddique Vs State of Kerala

Ahalia Foundation Eye Hospital Vs State of Kerala

Ajantha K Vs State of Kerala