Sanood K.P. and Others vs University of Kerala and Others

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioners are MBA students under the 1st respondent University, the University of Kerala. The 1st petitioner obtained BBA under the Distance Education Stream from Mahatma Gandhi University, the 3rd respondent herein. The 2nd petitioner obtained BBA again under the Distance Education Stream from Calicut University, the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioners were aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner''s admission to the MBA post graduate course was found to be irregular on account of the graduate qualification not being considered equivalent by the University of Kerala.

The petitioner was earlier before this Court which writ petition was disposed of as per Ext. P7. This Court directed the petitioners to file an application to the Kerala University for recognising their graduate degree. It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel that on consideration, the Academic Council has decided to recognise the BBA degree of the Mahatma Gandhi University. Hence the 1st petitioner''s admission is found to be regular. The 1st petitioner''s admission to the MBA post graduate course under the 1st respondent would be regularised and the petitioner would also be considered as a regular student in the course.

However, with respect to the 2nd petitioner the BBA course conducted by the Calicut University under the distance education stream is even now not recognised by the Kerala University. It is stated by the learned Standing counsel that a decision has been taken by the Board of Studies to reject the request for recognition of the BBA distance education stream course, of the Calicut University. Only if recommendation is made by the Board of Studies, the same would be placed before the Academic Council, is the contention. In such circumstance, the 2nd petitioner would have to definitely take his remedies against the decision of the Board of Studies.

This Court, cannot grant a regularisation on the contentions raised in the above writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners would specifically rely on Ext. P15 communication of the UGC and would contend that a course conducted by the University if recognised by the University Grants Commission, cannot be refused recognition by the individual Universities. The University Grants Commission, definitely, is the apex body regulating academic matters in the various Universities within the country. However, the power of the individual Universities to decide on equivalency and eligibility cannot at all be effaced merely on the ground that there is recognition by the University Grants Commission. It is trite that the minimum standards prescribed by the UGC would apply in the case of all the Universities and academic bodies and none can dilute such conditions. A rigour made by the individual University as to the eligibility condition or the question of equivalence as long as it does not dilute the minimum standards prescribed; would be perfectly in order. This Court, which does not have any expertise in such academic matters, would shy away from interfering with such rigour on individual University brings in to ensure academic excellence. Useful reference can be made to Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, (2008) 11 JT 543 : (2008) 13 SCALE 760 : (2009) 1 SCC 610 and Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 7 JT 179 : (2010) 11 SCC 159 : (2010) 8 SCR 475 : (2010) 7 UJ 3633 .

In such circumstance, the writ petition is partly allowed regularising the admission of the 1st petitioner but merely leaving open the remedies available to the 2nd petitioner. No costs.