Sreenath P. vs The Commissioner of Entrance Examinations

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.—The petitioner, who passed his class XII examination with Mathematics as one of the subjects, went on to obtain his B.Com. qualification from the Calicut University. Thereafter, he appeared at the entrance examination that was conducted for admission to the Master of Computer Application (MCA) course in the various Colleges affiliated inter alia to the Calicut University. The entrance examination itself was held consequent to Ext. P4 notification that was issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations functioning under the Government of Kerala. Clause 2 of the notification, which deals with the qualifications to be possessed by a candidate desirous of pursuing the MCA course in the AICTE approved institutions in the State for the academic year 2009-10, reads as follows:

QUALIFICATIONS

(a) Nativity: Candidate should be an Indian citizen.

(b) Academic: A pass in any recognized Bachelor''s Degree of minimum three years duration in any discipline with Mathematics at 10+2 level OR a pass in any recognized Bachelor''s Degree of minimum three years duration in any discipline with Mathematics/Statistics as one of the subjects.

NOTE: Candidates who are appearing/have appeared for the qualifying examination this year are also eligible to apply for the Entrance Examination subject to the condition that the entire mark list of the qualifying examination shall be produced by the candidate at the time of admission.

The petitioner, who had passed the B.Com degree recognised by the Calicut University and had passed Mathematics at the 10+2 level, stood qualified and eligible to appear for the entrance examination pursuant to Ext. P4 notification. On emerging successful at the examination, he was subjected to the centralised allotment process and obtained admission to the College of Applied Science, Kozhikode. Later, he exercised his higher option and opted for the MES College of Engineering, Kuttippuram, the third respondent herein, which he subsequently joined. When the 3rd respondent College made enquiries with the 2nd respondent University, as to whether the qualifications possessed by the petitioner would satisfy the requirements of the University for the course that was sought to be pursued by the petitioner, it was informed by the University that insofar as the petitioner did not study Mathematics as one of the subjects for his Degree course, the University Regulations would not recognise the petitioner as a person qualified for the said course. The 3rd respondent College, therefore, sought the advice of the 1st respondent in the matter. It would appear that, pursuant to the advice received from the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent proceeded to issue Ext. P11 order holding that the provisional admission granted to the petitioner on 30.11.2009 stood cancelled and he was to collect his certificates from the College Office. On being served with Ext. P11 order, the petitioner approached this court impugning the same and seeking a declaration that the Regulations of the Calicut University, insisting on a study of Mathematics as a subject at the degree level as a mandatory requirement for admission to the MCA course, was illegal. By an interim order dated 15.1.2010, this Court stayed the operation of Ext. P11 and permitted the petitioner to continue his studies in the MCA course in the 3rd respondent College pending disposal of the writ petition. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner completed the MCA course based on the interim direction of this Court and was, thereafter, also issued with the degree certificate dated 27.12.2013 by the 2nd respondent University certifying that he was qualified to receive the Degree of Master of Computer Applications having been placed in First Class at the examination held in December, 2012. By the certificate, the MCA degree is seen conferred on him by the 2nd respondent University.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent University, the specific stand taken is that as per the University Regulations, the requirement for admission to MCA is a bachelor degree in any discipline of three years duration with Mathematics (not including Business Mathematics or Business Statistic) as one of the subjects with at least 50% marks scored in Mathematics and the course undergone under the regular programme recognised by the University of Calicut. The contention of the 2nd respondent University is that insofar as the petitioner does not possess the required degree qualification with Mathematics as one of the subjects, he was not qualified for pursuing the course under the Calicut University notwithstanding the fact that the qualifications prescribed by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination in Ext. P4 notification enabled him to appear for the said examination. When queried on the fact of issuance of the MCA degree certificate to the petitioner, counsel for the 2nd respondent University would contend that the said certificate was probably issued on a mistaken interpretation of the interim order passed by this Court and, at any rate, the 2nd respondent University had the power to cancel or recall the said certificate.

I have heard Adv. Sri. K. Jayakumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Adv. Sri. Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent University, Adv. Sri. Babu Karukapadath, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent College, Sri. S. Krishnamurthy, Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent and Sri. A.J. Jose Aedaiodi, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that the writ petition must succeed. It is to be noted that Ext. P4 notification, inviting applications from students for the entrance examination for admission to the MCA course of 2009, was issued by the State Government in consultation with the Universities in the State, namely, the Kerala University, the Calicut University and the Mahatma Gandhi University. The applications were invited in connection with admission to the MCA courses in the AICTE approved institutions that were affiliated to the Universities in question. It is relevant to note that the said notification did not pertain to those MCA courses that were directly conducted by the said Universities. For the latter courses, separate procedures were envisaged for admitting students. In Ext. P4 notification, the qualification prescribed for an aspirant to the MCA course in the affiliated Colleges is not the same as what is prescribed in the Regulations of the 2nd respondent University, as borne out in its counter affidavit. The qualifications prescribed in Ext. P4 are relaxed qualifications, which nevertheless are in conformity with those prescribed by the AICTE. When the petitioner responded to this notification and came out successful in the entrance examination that followed, it could not be said that the petitioner was not qualified for the course that he sought to pursue by appearing at the entrance examination. This is because, Ext. P4 notification had the approval of all the Universities in the State, including the 2nd respondent University, and the admission process had been completed with the full knowledge of the 2nd respondent University. Many students had appeared at the entrance examination pursuant to the said notification, a reading of which suggested that the possession of the qualifications specified therein would enable the student to pursue the course in question on emerging successful in the entrance examination that was to be held. Under these circumstances, it must be deemed that the 2nd respondent University had exercised its power to relax the qualification requirements to the extent indicated in Ext. P4 notification, in respect of the MCA courses that were covered by the said notification. The existence of a power in the University to relax the qualifications prescribed in its Regulations, is not in dispute. The only question is whether the stipulation of relaxed qualification requirement in Ext. P4 can be viewed as an exercise, by the University, of its power to relax the qualification in this case. In my opinion, the express exercise of a power to relax is uncalled for when the University has given its approval to the selection process envisaged in Ext. P4 notification. The respondent University is effectively estopped from insisting on the more rigorous qualification specified in its Regulation and, in view of the fact that it has a power to relax those qualifications, it cannot take shelter under the principle that there cannot be an estoppel against the law. A contrary view, in this case would also have the undesirable result of affecting the future of a student, who placed reliance on Ext. P4 in the pursuit of his higher education.

In this case, there is yet another aspect that needs to be considered. As already noted, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner completed his MCA course and was also awarded the MCA Degree by the 2nd respondent University. This overt act of the University, in awarding the MCA degree to the petitioner notwithstanding its earlier objection regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to pursue the course, can only be seen as an express exercise, by the University, of the power to relax the qualification requirements in this particular case. No doubt, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent University would vehemently urge that it was well within the power of the 2nd respondent University to revoke or cancel the degree certificate mistakenly issued to the petitioner and it was open to the respondent University to do so in future. I am not, however, impressed with the said contention. The overt acts of the 2nd respondent University must be viewed in the backdrop of the power of relaxation that they have under the University Statutes. If there is a power to relax an educational qualification for a course governed by the University Statutes, then the wilful act of the 2nd respondent in conferring a degree on a student, whose qualifications were initially seen as not being in conformity with the prescribed qualifications, must necessarily be viewed as an express act of relaxation of qualifications by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent cannot be permitted to resile from its stand now unless it is demonstrated that the award of the degree to the petitioner was vitiated on account of any fraud or other vitiating circumstances. Since the 2nd respondent does not have such a case, and the relaxed qualifications in Ext. P4 notification are, admittedly, not below the standards prescribed by the AICTE, the 2nd respondent University would, in my opinion, be ill-advised to attempt a cancellation of the Degree certificate issued to the petitioner.

In the light of the above, I quash Ext. P11 communication issued to the petitioner and declare the petitioner to be the holder of a valid degree of Master of Computer Applications conferred on him by the 2nd respondent University.

The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.