Dismissed

Adv. Latheefa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2022WP(C)/9733/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging stricter LLM passing criteria in Calicut University's Department of Law compared to affiliated colleges. Court held academic schemes differ and this is within University's exclusive privilege.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with the observation that the Court cannot interfere with matters purely within the academic realm of the University.

Adv. Latheefa Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9733 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ADV.LATHEEFA W/O. MOHINUDEEN AGED 32 YEARS, PARAKKAL HOUSE. P.O. KULAPPULLY GOVT.PRESS, SHORNUR-2 PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679122

¶8

2 ADV.SALI. N AGED 45 YEARS S/O.USSAIN, NADOTH HOUSE, P.O. UNNIKULAM CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN - 673574

¶9

3ADV.MOIDEENKUTTY C.E
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, CHAMMALIL HOUSE,
P.O.KOLAKKATTUCHALI, CHELEMBRA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673634
BY ADV M.R.JAYAPRASAD

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, PIN - 695001

¶12

2 CALICUT UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. MALAPPURAM 673 635.

¶13

3 VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. MALAPPURAM – 673635. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN,SC,PTA DIST.CO.OP.BA SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 9733 OF 2022 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioners are stated to be pursuing LL.M Course, with the Department of Law of Calicut University.

¶18

Interestingly, the grievance projected by the petitioners is that the course which they have now joined has most stringent provisions with respect to valuation and clearance of papers, than what is being followed by the Affiliated Colleges, which also offer such courses. They say that when they are required to obtain 50% marks in each paper for the purpose of clearing a year, the students of the Affiliated Colleges are to obtain only 50% in aggregate. They allege that this amounts to treating two similar classes of students differently; and then make a further assertion that, after the Calicut University brought out Ext.P3 - Post Graduate Regulations, its terms alone could cover the course they are pursuing.

¶19

The petitioners thus seek a declaration that the University cannot treat the students of the LL.M course under their Department of Law, in variance with those pursuing it in the affiliated Colleges.

¶20

I have heard Sri.M.R.Jayaprasad – learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Calicut University.

¶21

WP(C) NO. 9733 OF 2022 3

¶22

Sri.M.R.Jayaprasad argued that University of Calicut has two different Schemes for the LL.M course, namely the ‘2013’ and ‘2015’. According to him, ‘2013 Scheme’ is easier on the students, since it provides them an opportunity to clear the examinations of a year with 50% aggregate; while, the ‘2015 Scheme’ is more arduous, which mandates that the student clear every paper with 50% marks. He then pointed out that, going by Ext.P3 - Post Graduate Regulations, the criteria for passing is much more relaxed and thus prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.

¶23

In reply, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University, started by saying that what the petitioners are attempting to do is to compare chalk with cheese, because ‘2013 Scheme’ and the ‘2015 Scheme’ are totally different and distinct. He submitted that the ‘2013 Scheme’ has been adopted by the Affiliated Colleges of law under the University; while its Department of Law has adopted the ‘2015 Scheme’. He then explained that ‘2013 Scheme’ is a single option course; while ‘2015 Scheme’ allows double specialization, under Credit and Semester system and that this was approved for the Law Department of the University exclusively. He then showed me from the documents on record, that ‘2015 Scheme’ provides opportunity to specialize two areas of law and that a double

¶24

WP(C) NO. 9733 OF 2022 4

¶25

valuation is also offered, which is the major significance of the said programme. He concluded his submissions arguing that Ext.P3 Regulations have no application to the LL.M. Course, either in the Department of Law or in the Affiliated Colleges, because it is managed and controlled under the applicable Regulations of Bar Council of India, unlike the other courses included therein; adding that, in any event, the petitioners cannot dictate to the University in the manner in which the Courses are to be designed and modulated - it being within the exclusive privilege of its Academic Bodies.

¶26

I must say that I find substantial force in the afore submissions of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan because, the petitioners joined the course fully being aware of its attributes. There is no law, admittedly, that the University cannot have different streams for the same discipline. As also rightly argued by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, petitioners are trying to compare the incomparable because ‘2013 Scheme’ and the ‘2015 Scheme’ have different attributes and benefits to the students and it was up to the petitioners to choose among them, particularly when they are lawyers, who have completed their LL.B Course and are in practice of law. It certainly cannot come out from the mouths of persons like the petitioners - who are practicing counsel - to say that they did not know what they chose; or that since

¶27

WP(C) NO. 9733 OF 2022 5

¶28

they are unable to clear the papers, they should be given the benefit of a less arduous stream, which is being followed by other Colleges. Similarly, the argument that Ext.P3 - Regulations should apply to the course which they are pursuing, is also not within their competence to assert - it being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Academic Bodies of the University.

¶29

I fail to gather why the petitioners have impelled the contentions, as have been done in this writ petition, because they joined the course being fully aware of its components; and if they wanted a more relaxing course - as they put it, they certainly could have joined the Affiliated Courses under the ‘2013 Scheme’ and nothing stopped them from doing so.

¶30

In the afore circumstances and since this Court cannot, in any manner, interfere with the matters purely within the academic realm of the University, I find no option but to dismiss this writ petition. It is so ordered.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶33

MC/15.11

¶34

WP(C) NO. 9733 OF 2022 6

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9733/2022

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED SYLLABUS
(SEMESTER SCHEME) JANUARY- DECEMBER 2013
DATED 13.12.2013
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8773/ 2015/
ADMN DATED 13- 08- 2015
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 4500/ 2019/
ADMIN. DATED 26. 03. 2019

Adv. Latheefa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adv. Latheefa v. State 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

K.Vijayambika Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Employees Pension Board

Manjukumari L. Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Vimitha Vijayan, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salam K., Vs P.v.Saseendran

Amrutha Devan C. Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Chellamma P.M. Vs the Government of Kerala