Partly allowed

Deepumon Mathew Varghese, v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Kerala HC23 Nov 2022WP(C)/6686/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal to issue MBA degree due to non-recognition of Bachelor degree obtained via distance education. Court directed University to reconsider case within three months under principles of natural justice, without assessing merits.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P14 set aside; University directed to reconsider petitioner's claim within three months and communicate proceedings.

Deepumon Mathew Varghese, Vs Mahatma Gandhi University — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 6686 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

DEEPUMON MATHEW VARGHESE,
AGED 40 YEARS

¶7

S/O. MONICHEN MATHEW, KOTTUPALLIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM
P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 531, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHYJU THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. LATE
V.D. KUNJUKUNJU, FLAT NO. 15G, ABAD CHANCELLOR, CANAL
ROAD, SEAPORT -AIRPORT ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM 682
021.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SHYAM KRISHNAN
GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE - SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 6686 OF 2022 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner says that he completed the MBA Course from an erstwhile “Off-campus Centre” of the Mahatma Gandhi University (M.G.University), operating in one of the Middle East countries; thus being entitled to the issuance of a Degree Certificate. He says that this has been, however, denied to him solely because it is alleged that the qualifying degree which he obtained from the Guru Ghansidas University, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, - is not one that is recognized by the M.G.University. He says that this is illegal and unlawful and thus assails Ext.P14 proceedings of the M.G.University.

¶17

Sri.Shyam Krishnan – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that Ext.P14 is peremptorily illegal because his client was admitted to the MBA Course, not in a provisional manner, but substantively. He submitted that there was no objection raised at any point of time, even when he wrote the final examinations, that his admission was not regular; and hence the objection now raised as afore can only be seen to be an afterthought. He then added that his client has, in fact, cleared all the papers of the MBA programme, thus being eligible to the Degree Certificate; and reiterated that refusal of the M.G.University to do so is illegal and unlawful.

¶18

WP(C) NO. 6686 OF 2022 3

¶19

In response, Sri.Surin George Ipe –learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University, submitted that petitioner is edificing his case on half truths and misdirected factual assertions. He pointed out that petitioner is yet to clear all the papers in the MBA programme; and that, in any event, the benefit of such will be available to him only if he is able to show that his admission was proper. He impressed upon me that the entries in the original admission register relating to the petitioner would show that approval for his admission was still due and that he wrote the examination of the MBA course subject to the same.

¶20

After asserting as afore, Sri.Surin George Ipe further submitted that the challenge to Ext.P14 - dated 05.06.2012, through this writ petition - which is presented on 28.02.2022, is itself impermissible, since it is clear that petitioner had acquiesced to the decision of the University. He concluded his submissions saying that the challenge to Ext.P14 is irrelevant because it is only a communication issued to the petitioner by the Director of the University, based on Ext.P13 decision taken by the Standing Committee of the Academic Council not to recognize his qualifying Degree Certificate obtained from the Guru Ghansidas University, Bilaspur. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶21

WP(C) NO. 6686 OF 2022 4

¶22

I must say upfront that the delay caused by the petitioner in approaching this Court certainly casts shadow on his bonafides.

¶23

However, if anything is legally and legitimately available to the petitioner, certainly, cannot be denied to him merely on the reason of delay.

¶24

Going by Ext.P14, the petitioner was informed, as early as on 05.06.2012, that the Standing Committee of the Academic Council of the M.G.University has decided not to recognize the Bachelor of Commerce Degree, which he obtained through Distance Education from the Guru Ghansidas University, Bilaspur. However, Ext.P13 does not show why the Standing Committee of the Academic Council took that decision; and to that extent, perhaps, the petitioner is justified in having approached this Court.

¶25

That said, I notice that a statement has been filed on behalf of the M.G.University, wherein, they have made the following averments, in support of the decision of the Standing Committee of the Academic Council:

¶26

“4. It is submitted that the decision not to recognise petitioner's degree was taken by the standing council of Academic Council a statutory body as per University Act 1985 Chapter IV, and Section 25[ii] the power conferred thereupon to grant or reject a request in tune with the expert opinion of the Board of Studies and Dean of the subject concerned. It is submitted that the Academic Council meets twice a year. The decision of not to recognise petitioner's degree was taken by the standing council of Academic Council a statutory body as per University Act 1985 Chapter IV, and Section 25[ii]

¶27

WP(C) NO. 6686 OF 2022 5

¶28

the power conferred thereupon to grant or reject a request in tune with the expert opinion of the Board of Studies and Dean of the subject concerned. Petitioner's request for equivalency/recognition was rejected in pursuant of regulation, U.O.No.18104/A.Cd/2011/Academic dated 09.04.2012 for not fulfilling the following conditions.

¶29

a) The eligibility conditions for admission to the equating programmes should be similar.

¶30

b) Duration of the course should be similar

¶31

c) Number of papers/courses/viva/dissertation/project in both programmes should have a match.

¶32

d) Contents should be similar to atleast 75%.

¶33

The petitioner was admitted to the off campus exam centre Abu dubai. Candidates with their degrees obtained from other Universities are admitted provisionally and their degrees have to be recognised [when it is not regular or there is difference in Nomenclature] by the host University. Soon after the verification of qualifying certificates it is found out that petitioners qualifying degree did not have the eligibility/equivalency in this University and to confirm his admission he was asked to produce the same. And his request for recognition was rejected on the basis of the University Order mentioned as Ext.P13 which is not arbitrary or illegal, hence it cannot be quashed and not maintainable. Petitioners B Com degree through distance education from Guru Ghasidas University does not have equivalency/recognition even now.”

¶34

However, as I have already said above, since Ext.P13 does not disclose any reason as to why the petitioner’s qualifying degree has not been recognized and since it is now well settled that any proceedings will have to be supported by its contents, and not by subsequent pleadings (see for support Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405], I am of the view that a limited latitude can be shown to the petitioner, by directing the Academic Council or such other competent Authority of the University, to reconsider his case; however, without affording him an opportunity of being heard. I record that this has been acceded to

¶35

WP(C) NO. 6686 OF 2022 6

¶36

Sri. Surin George Ipe, learned Standing Counsel for M.G. University.

¶37

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P14, clarifying that this is not because I have gone into the merits of its contents, but solely to pave way for reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim; consequently, directing the competent Authority of the University to do so, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and to communicate its resultant proceedings to the petitioner as per usual course.

¶38

Needless to say, even though the arguments of the University, relating to the delay in approaching this Court by the petitioner, is certainly valid, I deem it appropriate to clarify that, for the purpose of achieving substantial justice, the University will complete the afore exercise de hors the same, but leaving it open to them to impel the same in future, if it becomes warranted.

¶39

Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 JUDGE

¶40

mc/23.11

¶41

WP(C) NO. 6686 OF 2022 7

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6686/2022

¶43

`PETITIONER EXHI` `Exhibit P1`	`BITS` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE B.COM COURSE,` `TO THE PETITIONER` `UNIVERSITY, BILAS`	`MARK-SHEET FOR PART I OF` `DATED 28.06.2000, ISSUED` `BY THE GURU GHANSIDAS` `PUR, CHATTISGARH.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE B.COM COURSE,` `TO THE PETITIONER` `UNIVERSITY, BILAS`	`MARK-SHEET FOR PART II OF` `DATED 29.05.2001, ISSUED` `BY THE GURU GHANSIDAS` `PURT CHATTISGARH.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF THE B.COM COUR` `ISSUED TO THE PET` `GHANSIDAS UNIVERS` `CHATTISGARH.`	`MARK-SHEET FOR PART III` `SE, DATED 29.07.2002,` `ITIONER BY THE GURU` `ITY , BILASPUR,`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE GUR` `BILASPUR, CHATTIS`	`LETTER DATED 06.03.2010,` `U GHANSIDAS UNIVERSITY,` `GARH, TO THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DEGREE CERTIFICAT` `AWARDED TO THE PE` `GHANSIDAS UNIVERS` `CHATTISGARH.`	`BACHELOR OF COMMERCE` `E DATED 27.05.2003,` `TITIONER BY THE GURU` `ITY, BILASPUR,`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT TO TH` `AND 2ND SEMESTER` `COURSE, HELD IN 2`	`HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE` `PETITIONER, FOR THE 1ST` `EXAMINATIONS OF THE MBA` `004.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT TO THE` `AND 2ND SEMESTER` `COURSE, HELD IN 2`	`HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE` `PETITIONER, FOR THE 1ST` `EXAMINATIONS OF THE MBA` `005.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT TO THE` `AND 4TH SEMESTER` `COURSE, HELD IN 2`	`HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE` `PETITIONER , FOR THE 3RD` `EXAMINATION OF THE MBA` `005.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SEMESTER OF THE M` `PETITIONER BY THE`	`MARK-SHEET FOR THE 1ST` `BA COURSE, ISSUED TO THE` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SEMESTER OF THE M` `PETITIONER BY THE`	`MARK SHEET FOR THE 2ND` `BA COURSE, ISSUED TO THE` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `30.11.2009, SUBMI` `THE RESPONDENT.`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `TTED BY THE PETITIONER TO`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `31.01.2012, SUBMI`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `TTED BY THE PETITIONER TO`

¶44

WP(C) NO. 6686 OF 2022 8

¶45

THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.05.2012 OF
THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.06.2012
ISSUED BY THE SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
OF THE RESPONDENT, TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P15TRUE COPY OF THE SYLLABUS FOR THE FIRST
YEAR OF THE B.COM DISTANCE MODE COURSE
UNDERGONE BY THE PETITIONER, AT THE GURU
GHANSIDAD UNIVERSITY, BILASPUR,
CHATTISGARH
Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF THE SYLLABUS FOR THE SECOND
YEAR OF THE B.COM DISTANCE MODE COURSE
UNDERGONE BY THE PETITIONER, AT THE GURU
GHANSIDAD UNIVERSITY, BILASPUR,
CHATTISGARH
Exhibit P17TRUE COPY OF THE SYLLABUS FOR THE THIRD
YEAR OF THE B.COM DISTANCE MODE COURSE
UNDERGONE BY THE PETITIONER, AT THE GURU
GHANSIDAD UNIVERSITY, BILASPUR,
CHATTISGARH

¶46

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶47

TRUE COPY

¶48

P.A TO JUDGE

¶49

Deepumon Mathew Varghese, v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepumon Mathew Varghese, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.R Ajith Vs State of Kerala

Shiju Thomas Vs Trikkaipetta Sevice Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Fredy.J Vs State of Kerala

Nirmal Infopark (India) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Jayaram.B. Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Consumer Federation

G.Shirmila Jose Vs State of Kerala