Mahatma Gandhi
University & ANR. Vs. GIS Jose & Ors. [2008] INSC 1521 (8 September
2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO._5550_OF 2008 (Arising
out of SLP (C) No. 3569 of 2007) Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. ....
Appellants Versus Gis Jose & Ors. .... Respondents
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
It
is once again, a judgment has come from the High Court in complete derogation
of the observations of this Court against the compromising of the educational
standards in the matter of admissions to a particular course by showing
unnecessary sympathies. The Mahatma Gandhi University has come up against the
judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court whereby the Division Bench
allowing the appeal of a student, has directed the University to declare the
withheld result of the student. The direction though was, of course, without
creating precedence, as a special case.
3.
It
so happened that Petitioner, Gis Jose was admitted to the M.Sc. Computer
Science course. She had secured only 53.3% marks in her qualifying examination
against the minimum requirement of cut-off marks, which had been fixed by the
university as 55%. Obviously in total derogation of this fact, the student was
admitted. The error, when found by the University, the Controller of
Examination wrote a letter dated 01.11.2004 to the Principal, B.P.C. College,
Piravom, pointing out the irregular admission to the M.Sc. Computer Science
course. It was pointed out that the student's application for Ist and IInd
semester Examinations, held in April and July, 2004 respectively, were already
rejected on the ground that the student had scored only 53 % marks and her
admission was in violation of the Admission Rules framed by the University and
still the Principal had allowed the student to continue in M.Sc. Computer
Science to complete the course and to write her examination. It was pointed out
that the University was viewing the matter very seriously and the Principal was
further directed to cancel the admission given to the student and to report the
matter within 10 days. It is obvious from this letter that the earlier
applications dated 22.4.04 and 26.7.04 were also rejected by the University. A
memo was ultimately sent on 25.2.2005 and the student was informed that the
University had rejected her request for continuing studies in M.Sc. Computer Science
in the college. This was on the basis of the Minutes of the Academic Council
Meeting dated 23.12.2004 where the Academic Council had refused to allow the
student to continue her studies and yet the student was allowed to continue
with 3 the course in complete and total derogation of the directions given by
the Controller of Examinations.
4.
The
student came before the Kerala High Court by way of a writ petition which was
dismissed by the Learned Single Judge of that Court, as the student did not
have the basic qualification for admission to the course in accordance with the
University Regulations. It was also found that when the application for the Ist
semester examination was submitted, the same was not accepted by the University
and the same was the fate of the IInd semester examination also yet the student
was permitted to continue her studies.
5.
An
appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench has allowed the appeal. For that purpose, the Division Bench
relied on the earlier Division Bench decision of that Court in W.A. No. 1040 of
2003. In that, the Division Bench had taken the view that since the student had
completed the course and had taken the examination, the results would have to
be declared. There the Court had also taken the view that at that juncture, the
student could not be singled out. The Division Bench "further in view of
the inconsistency" chose to grant relief and further observed that this
did not adversely affect the interest of others and that it was too late for
anybody to contend that by treating her admission in nullity, somebody would
have gained anything.
4 The Division Bench
also took the view that the student had not misrepresented regarding her marks
and yet she was given the admission as a normal student.
6.
It
was further observed by the Division Bench that a strict approach
"disrobbing off the fruits of her effort could have had harsh
results." The Division Bench also agreed that such irregular admissions
were likely to pave the way for foul play in the hands of unscrupulous college
management, and yet further proceeded to grant relief to the student, in view
of the fact that the student had taken the examinations of semesters Ist to
IVth and had undergone the full course. We are at complete loss to understand
as to how such course could have been taken. In fact, the unscrupulous college
management had obviously given an irregular admission and because of that
admission, at least one student was deprived of the admission to the M.Sc. Computer
Course, so also it was a complete discrimination between the respondent and
other students, who had also scored 53.3% marks and were not given admission on
that count.
The matters do not
stop here. The Controller of the Examination had subsequently rejected her
application for the first and second semester examination which took place in
April and July, 2004 and yet the college proceeded to allow her to write her
examination of those semesters and also continued her admission. It cannot be
assumed that the students did 5 not have the idea of all these irregularities.
It was obvious that there was an unholy hand shake of the student and the
college authorities.
7.
It
was contended by Shri B.V. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the student
that the Vice Chancellor had allowed her to continue with the course. However,
there is nothing on record to support this fact.
Further, such
permission was clearly incorrect if at all given. In the subsequent meeting of
the Academic Council, the student was not permitted to continue with the
course. All these factors were completely ignored by the Division Bench in the
impugned judgment . Therefore, at least after the Academic Council had rejected
the student's request, she could not have been allowed to continue. This did
not happen and the college allowed her to take the further examinations for III
and IV semesters also. We totally disapprove of all this.
8.
Learned
counsel for the student relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Selin
Mary Mammen vs. Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors.
[Civil Appeal No.689
of 2004 delivered on 3.2.2004], a judgment delivered by Lahoti, J. Apart from
the fact that the factual position is different in that case, there were no
timely notices given regarding the irregular admission to the student as in the
present case.
9.
The
misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules.
In our opinion, that is precisely what has happened.
6 Such a course was
disapproved by this Court in Regional Officer, CBSE vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran
and Others [(2003) 7 SCC 719]. In paragraph 6 of the Judgment, this Court
observed as follows :
"6. This Court
has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the
students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the
interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases, it is ultimately
pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the
matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward
and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of
sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions...........
".
10.
In
the present case, the college where the student was admitted, in breach of all
possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but also to write
the examination which was totally illegal.
11.
We,
therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench
and restore the judgment of the Single Bench dismissing the Writ Petition.
.............................J.
(Ashok Bhan)
..............................J.
(V.S. Sirpurkar)
New
Delhi;
September
8, 2008.
7 Digital Performa
Case No. : SLP (C) No. 3569 of 2007 Date of Decision : 08.09.2008 Cause Title :
Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. Gis Jose & Ors.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
