AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—The Petitioner herein prays to quash the communication dated 30.9.99 informing him that he being part-time candidate,
he is not eligible for rank. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the course of M.B.A., in the academic year 1996-1997 to 1998-1999 in the
2nd respondent college. He attended all the classes for part-time course, appeared in the examination and passed it by obtaining 67.65% of marks
which was the top rank percentage for that course. He was informed by a letter dated 20.9.1999 that since he has got top rank in the university he
should submit a duly filled up application for getting his first rank certificate. He accordingly complied with the same. However, the university
realised that the letter was wrongly sent because no ranking could be given for MBA Part-time course and that was available only in respect of
full-time course. Therefore they revoked the letter and communicated the petitioner by the impugned letter stating that no such certificate of rank
could be given. He then made personal representations but to no effect. He has therefore approached this court.
The first respondent has filed a counter in which it is pointed out that there are two courses run by the University, one is MBA Full Time Course
which is for two years. However, the other one MBA Part-time course for which the petitioner herein appeared and passed is of three years,
meaning thereby the two students one joining the full-time course and the other joining the part-time course would not pass the MBA course in one
and the same year. While the student joining the full time course completes the course in two years, the student joining the part-time course will
have to complete the course one year after that. It is further pointed out in the counter that ranking is given only to the MBA Full-Time Course
candidates. It is also clarified in the counter that the petitioner cannot be given the ranking and more particularly a certificate because though he has
passed MBA and entitled to use the MBA Degree, it cannot be said that he has topped in the MBA Degree in the year in which he has passed the
course. Because while he has passed the course in three years, the other MBA students who are the full-time course students have passed it only
in two years. It is also pointed out that though the course is similar and degree is similar, the number of classes engaged for both the courses are
different. Therefore there is difference in the two degrees. Merely because the nomenclature for both the courses is common, the petitioner cannot
insist that he should be given rank certificate. The decision taken by the first respondent appears to be a correct decision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courses are one and the same and the subjects are also one and the same and therefore
it should be held that he has topped in the whole MBA Course. That is not possible as that will amount to equate the un-equals. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that the University has acted correctly. Further undoubtedly the university officials should have been alert and careful before issuing
letter to the petitioner intimating that he has secured first rank and is entitled a certificate to that effect. It is explained in the counter that the said first
letter sent to the petitioner was sent by way of error. I find no reason to reject the said statement. However, I see no merits in the writ petitions.
Hence it is dismissed. No costs.