Arunsalam Rajenthiran and Others vs The Dean (Academic) National Institute of Technology and Others

M.M. Sundresh, J.—As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they have been taken up together and disposed of by a common order. The petitioner in W.P. No. 35613 of 2015 is admittedly a Srilankan national and petitioner in W.P. No. 1 of 2013 is his father. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P. No. 1 of 2013.

By following due procedure, the application of the petitioner''s son was taken up for scrutiny and on verification he was duly admitted under the direct admission to the students abroad (DASA Scheme) in the College of the 3rd respondent for the B.Tech (Civil Engineering) course. This was done so on 24.7.2010 through the admission made. The petitioner''s son continued his studies and completed four semesters. On 24.12.2012, the 3rd respondent passed an order without notice to the petitioner terminating the admission made. At that point of time, the petitioner has completed the 3rd year. The said order was passed on the ground that the enquiry by the 2nd respondent reveals that admission has been made without the requisite qualification. It appears that the requisite qualification is 60% of marks, which the petitioner admittedly did not secure. Challenging the Order dated 24.12.2012, the petitioner - father filed W.P. No. 1 of 2013. The copy of the order dated 24.12.2012 is marked to the petitioner, who was residing in Chennai. Thus, the writ petition in W.P. No. 1 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner in Chennai. On 2.1.2013 this Court was pleased to stay the order dated 24.12.2012. Thereafter, on 4.1.2013, while complying with the order passed by this Court dated 2.1.2013, the 3rd respondent has stated that the Order dated 24.12.2012 has become invalid and redundant.

The petitioner''s son completed his course and in pursuant to the same, provisional certificate was issued by the 3rd respondent. However, due to the pendency of the writ petition in W.P. No. 1 of 2013 the petitioner''s son was not issued with the consolidated marks and the Degree Certificate. Therefore, the petitioner''s son has filed the Second Writ Petition in W.P. No. 35613 of 2015 seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 1 of 2013 to issue the degree certificate.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a part of cause action is available under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. It is too late of the day for the respondents questioning the jurisdiction. In any case, it is not as if the State as a whole does not have the territorial jurisdiction. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The order impugned in W.P. No. 1 of 2013 has been passed in pursuant to the communication of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, a part of a cause of action has arisen at Chennai, particularly, when the father of the student, who filed W.P. No. 1 of 2013 resides in Chennai and apart from that the student also resides temporarily at Chennai. Reliance has been made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners on a decision of the Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI), .

It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioner''s son is not at fault. Even assuming the petitioner''s son was not qualified for admission with reference to the qualifying mark, having admitted the petitioner''s son and allowed him to complete the 3rd year, it is not open to the respondent to contend the contra. Learned Senior Counsel has made reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, , wherein the Supreme Court has taken note of a well quoted decision rendered in Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, .

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submitted that it is a case of suppression of material fact. It is not as if the petitioner''s son is otherwise qualified. The lack of eligibility will go to the root of the matter. There is no territorial jurisdiction available to this Court. Two other similar cases have been filed only at Madurai Bench of this Court. Therefore, no interference is required.

Coming to the question of jurisdiction first, this issue has been raised belatedly by the respondents at this stage. A perusal of the order impugned dated 24.12.2012 would show that it has been passed in pursuant to the enquiry initiated by the 2nd respondent having his office at Chennai. In fact, the said order proceeds to state that the 2nd respondent found that the petitioner''s son has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria and therefore it recommended to take action to cancel the admission. Thus, the entire issue has emanated from the enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner - father of the student is residing in Chennai. The student was also residing in Chennai at the relevant point of time. A copy of the order impugned dated 24.12.2012 has been marked to the petitioner''s father as well. The petitioner is also at present residing in Chennai. Thus, considering the scope of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI), and applying the same to the facts of the case on hand, certainly, this Court has got jurisdiction to decide the same on merits.

Coming to the merits of the case, it appears that substantially mistake lies with the respondents. When a student without satisfying the eligibility criteria applies, the appropriate authority is bound to look into the application, scrutinise the same and reject it at the earliest point of time. An application made without satisfying the requisite criteria per se would not amount to a fraud having been committed.

As of now, there is no material to hold the complicity on the part of the petitioners. The petitioner''s son was given due admission by the respondents. Thus, even the respondents got a substantial role in the entire episode and the respondents have woke up after the completion of the third year by the petitioner and passed order impugned dated 24.12.2012 without even affording an opportunity. Such an unilateral cancellation cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Certainly, the doctrine of estoppel would apply in such an eventuality. Considering the similar issue, it has been held by the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, , wherein the Supreme Court has taken note of a well quoted decision rendered in Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, and observed as under:

''''20. This Court in Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, has observed that before issuing the admission card to a student to appear in Part I Law examination, it was the duty of the university authorities to scrutinise the papers; and equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the university to see that it complied with all requirements; and if they did not take care to scrutinise the papers, and candidature for the examinations cannot be cancelled subsequently on the ground of non-fulfilment of requirements.''''

Similarly, in the very same decision of Guru Nanak Dev University, by taking note of the subsequent decision rendered in Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and others, , the Apex Court was pleased to hold as follows:

"21. In Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and others, , this Court held where the candidate was admitted to the Law course by the Law College and the university also permitted him to appear for Pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations, the college and the university were estopped from withholding his result on the ground that he was ineligible to take admission in the Law course.

Having regard to the above we are of the view that irrespective of the fact that MA (English) (OUS) degree secured by the first respondent from Annamalai University through distance education, may not be recognised as an equivalent to the Master''s degree of the appellant University, his admission to the law course should not be cancelled. The appellant university is directed to treat the admission as regular admission and permit the first respondent to appear for the law examination, and if he has already appeared for the examination, declare his result. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.''''

The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above said three decisions would be applicable to the case on hand. In pursuant to the interim order granted, the petitioner''s son has duly completed the course. Therefore, not only the law but the equity also lies in favour of the petitioners. It is not as if the said seat can be utilised for any other student at this point of time. Thus, looking from any angle, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled for the relief sought for. The petitioner''s son did complete the Course successfully on merit. In other words, though it can be said that the entry of the petitioner''s son into the College may not be correct, but his successful completion of the Course is based upon his performance. The respondents have also issued, though in compliance of the interim order, the provisional certificate acknowledging the completion of course by the petitioner''s son.

Considering the above facts, particularly, when there is no contra material available against the alleged fraud said to have been committed by the petitioner''s son, this Court is of the considered view that both the writ petitions are liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 24.12.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside and W.P. No. 1 of 2013 is allowed. Consequently, W.P. No. 35613 of 2015 is also allowed by directing the respondent to issue the Degree Certificate along with the incidental certificates of consolidated marks sheet to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so as to enable him to pursue his further studies elsewhere. No costs. However, it is made clear that the decision has to be understood on the factual context involved in the present cases before this Court.