Dismissed

Seethalekshmi R. v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Kerala HC19 Aug 2016WP(C)/9656/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking admission and permission to continue M.Tech studies. It held that the University authority's finding that the petitioners' B.Tech course had less than 75% equivalency with the required syllabus was valid and binding. The Court declined to declare them eligible for the specific specialization course.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no admission or relaxation granted. Petitioners not entitled to continue studies in the specific specialization due to lack of basic eligibility.

Seethalekshmi R. Vs Mahatma Gandhi University — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/28TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9656 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. SEETHALEKSHMI R.,

¶8

3RD SEMESTER M.TECH IN VLSI & EMBEDDED SYSTEM STUDENT, ADI SHANKARA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KALADY.

¶9

2. SHAHIDA T.A., 3RD SEMESTER M.TECH IN VLSI & EMBEDDED SYSTEM STUDENT, MANGALAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 631.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 562.

¶13

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 562.

¶14

3. THE PRINCIPAL,

¶15

ADI SHANKARA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KALADY-683 574.

¶16

4. THE PRINCIPAL, MANGALAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING , ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 631.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, S.C R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 9656 of 2015 (F)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF 1ST PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF 2ND PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PERMITTING THE PETITIONERS TO APPEAR FOR 2ND SEMESTER EXAMINATION.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PAY-IN-SLIP ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PAY-IN-SLIP ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT SHEET OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶31

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT SHEET OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES WHO HAD PAID THE EXAMINATION FEE.

¶34

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF ALL THE STUDENTS.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶36

EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY CIRCULAR NO.AC.A1/3/2114/2008 DATED 06.11.2008.

¶37

EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE U.O.NO.3480/AIV/1/ACAD/2014 DATED 05.07.2014.

¶38

EXHIBIT R1(C): TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE PRINCIPALS OF ASIET AND MANGALAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DATED 15.01.2014.

¶39

WP(C).No. 9656 of 2015 (F)

¶40

EXHIBIT R1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE OF JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2014 IN WA NO. 78/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶45

W.P.(C).No.9656 of 2015

¶46

Dated this, the 19^th day of August, 2016

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :

¶49

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the entire records and to declare that the petitioners are eligible and entitled for admission to M.Tech course in Electronics & Communication Engineering with specialization in VLSI & Embedded System and that their admission to the course is in order.

¶50

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to release the results of 1^st and 2^nd Semester M.Tech course in Electronics & Communication Engineering with specialization in VLSI & Embedded System undertaken by the petitioners and to permit the petitioners to appear for the ensuing semester examinations as well.

¶51

The petitioners claim that they obtained B.Tech Degree in Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering from Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). They applied for M.Tech Course in Electronics & Communication Engineering with specilaization in VLSI & Embedded System in Adi Shankara Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kalady and Mangalam College of Engineering, Kottayam which comes under the Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioners submit that though the first semester examination was to commence during the month of May 2014, they were not issued hall tickets. They approached the University and the Vice Chancellor to permit them to write the first semester examination. By an

¶52

W.P.(C).No.9656 of 2015

¶53

¶54

endorsement made in Exts.P3 and P4, they were permitted to write the first semester examination. However, the results were not declared. Similar situation arose when the second semester examination was also to commence. The petitioners were permitted to write the second semester examination also. This writ petition was filed at a time when the third semester examination was about to commence. The petitioners had written the third semester examination as per interim orders issued by this Court. It is inter alia contended that the B.Tech Course, which was the basic eligibility criteria undertaken by the petitioners, was equivalent to the basic degree that was required for M.Tech Course.

¶55

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents inter alia stating that on verification of qualification of the petitioners, it was seen that they were not eligible for admission to M.Tech Course in the specified subjects. The Principals of the Colleges were informed that the admission to the petitioners could not be regualrised as they have B.Tech Degree in Electronics and Instrumentation taken from CUSAT, which is not an eligible branch for admission to M.Tech in VLSI and Embedded System. According to the University B.Tech Courses in Electronics & Communication Engineering, Applied Electronics, Applied Electronics and Instrumentation or Electronics and Telecommunication alone were eligible B.Tech Courses for admission to the aforesaid M.Tech

¶56

W.P.(C).No.9656 of 2015

¶57

¶58

Course. However, on the request of the petitioners, the Vice Chancellor permitted them to provisionally write the first and second semester examinations. The matter was considered by the Board of Studies in Engineering and the entire syllabus was scrutinized. It is further indicated that the Principals of the Colleges were informed about the irregularity in admission on 15.01.2014 and 08.02.2014 when the qualification certificates of the petitioners were received from the Colleges. Subsequently the Board of Studies in Engineering also did not recommend the B.Tech Electronics and Instrumentation of CUSAT as eligible for M.Tech Course in the aforesaid subjects. Ext.R1(b) is the order dated 05.07.2014. It is therefore contended that the petitioners being not eligible for undertaking the course, cannot continue the studies and are not eligible to write the third semester examination or to complete the studies.

¶59

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶60

According to the University, the B.Tech Course undertaken by the petitioners from CUSAT namely Electronics and Instrumentation was not an eligible branch of study for admission to M.Tech in VLSI and Embedded System. The question whether the said course was equivalent to other courses which were eligible courses was considered by the Board of Studies. Ext.R1(b) is the

¶61

W.P.(C).No.9656 of 2015

¶62

¶63

order dated 05.07.2014 which reads as under :

¶64

“The Board of Studies in Engineering (PG) vide item no.3 of the minutes read above mentions that upon verification of the syllabus of B. Tech Electronics and Instrumentation of CUSAT with B. Tech Applied Electronics and Instrumentation of M G University, the equivalency is much less than 75%, especially in the 7^th and 8^th semesters. Hence Board of Studies in Engineering is not recommending the B.Tech Electronics and Instrumentation, CUSAT as eligible for M. Tech VLSI & Embedded System, M G University.

¶65

The Vice Chancellor, exercising power under section 10 (17) chapter 3 of Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985 has approved the recommendation of the Board of Studies in Engineering that B.Tech Electronics and Instrumentation, CUSAT is not eligible for M.Tech VLSI & Embedded System, M G University.

¶66

Orders are issued accordingly.”

¶67

Once such a decision has been taken by the University, I don't think that this Court will be justified in taking a different view in the matter. Whether a particular course is equivalent to the eligible courses of the University or not is a matter to be considered by the competent authority. Since such a decision is taken in the matter based on all the factors which are required to be considered for equivalency and it is found that the equivalency is less than 75% and especially in 7^th and 8^th semesters, a different view is not possible.

¶68

The learned counsel for the petitioners however would submit that the Academic Council is yet to take a decision in the

¶69

W.P.(C).No.9656 of 2015

¶70

¶71

matter. He made specific reference to the counter affidavit filed. It is stated that a reference to paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit does not indicate that the matter is pending before the Academic Council. It only indicates that when the matter was pending before the Academic Council, the Vice Chancellor had taken a decision exercising the power under Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985. Further it could be seen that instructions were given by the University to the College Principals to cancel the irregular admission as evident from Exts.R1(c) series dated 08.02.2014 and 15.01.2014. However it is by virtue of interim directions issued by this Court that the petitioners were permitted to write the third semester examinations. It is also relevant to note that the Vice Chancellor had also permitted the petitioners to write the first and second semester examinations.

¶72

The question to be considered presently is whether there will be any justification to permit the petitioners to continue the studies. Apparently, the results of the petitioners had not been declared so far in respect of semesters 1 and 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the result of semesters 2 and 3 has already been declared.

¶73

Be that as it may, the question to be considered is whether the petitioners had the basic qualification for getting admission to the course. The answer is no. The University had considered

¶74

W.P.(C).No.9656 of 2015

¶75

¶76

whether the basic qualification which the petitioners had obtained was equivalent to the basic qualification prescribed for the aforesaid M.Tech Course. The University had found that the equivalency is less than 75%, especially in the 7^th and 8^th semesters and hence decision was taken that the said course is not an eligible course. Having continued the course for these semesters whether the petitioners can be permitted to complete the studies by providing any relaxation can be decided by the University on the petitioners making appropriate representation.

¶77

In the said circumstances, I don't think that the petitioners are entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶80

Seethalekshmi R. v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seethalekshmi R. v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilsha P.M Vs State of Kerala

Vinith Viswananthan Vs Azeezia Medical College

Bilnamol Vs the University of Calicut

Chandrika Kunhikkanan Vs the Authorised Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Muthoottu Mini Hotels Pvt.Ltd Vs State

C.S.Rishi Vs the Authorised Officer