Miss.Abija MerIn Edison Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE1T DAY OF APRIL201411TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 9385 of 2014 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. MISS.ABIJA MERIN EDISON M. TECH STUDENT (2013 BATCH) JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT & ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY VENGOLA P.O VALAYANCHIRANGARA ERNAKULAM DIST. 683556 2. MISS. PREETHY PRASAD, -DO- 3. MEENU MOHANAN, -DO- BY ADVS.SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.THOMAS GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR PRIYADARSINI HILLS ATHIRAMPUZHA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT686560.

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS ATHIRAMPUZHA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT686560.

3. THE PRINCIPAL JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT & ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY VENGOLA P.O VALAYANCHIRANGARA ERNAKULAM DIST. - 683 556.

4. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION TRIVANDRUM- 695001. BY DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0104-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9385 of 2014 (W) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO P.G.DEGREE COURSE IN ENGIEERING FOR THE YEAR2013EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER

DATED276-2013 OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION (G) DEPARTMENT EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE FOR ALL B.TECH EXAMS CONDUCTED IN2013EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET DATED2111-2013 PUBLISHED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY IN NOVEMBER2013EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET DATED1812-2013 FOR THE4H SEMESTER OF THE1T PETITIONER EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL MARK LIST FOR THE SEMESTERS I & II OF THE2D PETITIONER EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL MARK LIST OF -DO- EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY EXAM FOR THE4H SEMESTER OF THE3D PETITIONER EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED1212-2013 FROM THE UNIVERSITY TO THE COLLEGE. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED253-2014 ISSUED FROM THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED293-2014 ISSUED FROM THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED710-2013 ISSUED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED1911-2013 ISSUED FROM THE -DO- //True Copy// P.A. To Judge K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 9385 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 1st April, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT

The dispute raised herein, essentially revolves around the manner in which the M.Tech. admissions are carried on in the various Government, Aided and Private Colleges within the State. The Government issues a prospectus similar to Exhibit P1, for each academic year, wherein, on the basis of merit, a rank list is prepared by the Director of Technical Education (for short "DTE"). Allotments are made from the said rank list to the Government and Aided Engineering Colleges by the Director himself and the list is made available to the private managements, so as to make 50% admissions from the said list. The balance 50%, as far as the private managements are concerned, could be admitted from whoever is qualified as per the prospectus issued by the DTE. WP(C).9385/14 2 2. The prospectus issued for the year 2013 is evident in Exhibit P1 and the modification made in the same year with respect to one of the clauses, is seen in Exhibit P2. Clause 5(e) as it existed, and then modified, is extracted hereunder: Clause V(e) before amendment [Exhibit P1]: "Candidates who have appeared for the final semester examination can also apply, provided he/she has passed all the subjects upto and including the 6th semester exam (8th semester for B.Arch students). Selection of such candidates shall be subject to the production of qualifying degree - satisfying clauses V(a) to (d) as applicable on or before September 30, 2013". After amendment [Exhibit P2]: "the candidates who have appeared for the final semester examination can also apply, provided he/she has passed WP(C).9385/14 3 all the subjects upto and including the 6th semester exam (8th semester for B.Arch students) or who are waiting for the result of the supplementary examinations of the above or previous semesters".

3. Earlier only candidates who have passed all the subjects upto and including the 6th semester examinations and who were awaiting the results of either 7th semester supplementary examinations or 8th semester final examinations, could be admitted on condition of production of qualifying degree on or before September, 30, 2013. The modification made; removed the cut off date and also enabled the students who had appeared for the supplementary examinations of any previous semester to apply, if they were merely waiting for the results of such appearance in the supplementary examinations.

4. The 1st petitioner had failed to clear the WP(C).9385/14 4 4th and 6th semesters, the 2nd petitoner the 1st and 2nd semesters and the 3rd petitioner the 4th semester in the regular examinations held. However, the petitioners appeared for the 8th semester final regular examination as also the supplementary semester examinations they failed to clear earlier in May, 2013. The results of the final year 8th semester examinations came out in July, 2013 and the petitioners were admitted to the 3rd respondent-College. The petitioners were awaiting the results of the supplementary examinations, of the earlier semesters, in which they had appeared for failed subjects. Admittedly both the 8th semester regular final examinations and the supplemementary examinations were conducted together and publication of marks of the supplementary examinations got delayed and, hence, a Confidential Mark List was supplied by the University to the institution in which the WP(C).9385/14 5 petitioner joined. Evidently the petitioners qualified in the supplementary examinations too. The Provisional Certificate was issued only later, after the publication of results and on the petitioners' admission being sent to the Controller of Examinations for registration, the same was declined by Exhibit P11, which is assailed herein.

5. Exhibit P11 notices that the last date of admission was on 13.11.2013 and the candidates acquired the qualification on 11.12.2013. The date 13.11.2013 specified as the last date for admission in Exhibit P11 is the date specified by the DTE, as is evident from Exhibits P12 and P13. The DTE, in the said Exhibits, took note of the fact that the result of the supplementary examinations is getting delayed and noticing the modification, Exhibit P2, the last date fixed for submitting the qualifying certificates was WP(C).9385/14 6 extended upto 28.10.2013 and then further extended to 13.11.2013.

6. As was noticed above, the DTE is concerned with only allotment of candidates to the Government and Aided Engineering Colleges. Exhibits P12 and P13 obviously are only addressed to the Government and Aided Engineering Colleges. Hence, the date prescribed by the DTE has no bearing in so far as private management colleges are concerned. The University also does not have a case that they have notified a last date for admission. In such circumstance, what is to be looked at, is the notification, Exhibit P2, which altered Exhibit P1. Exhibit P2 replaces the earlier clause and does not indicate a specific date as the last date before which the candidate has to produce the qualifying certificates. Going by Exhibit P2, the petitioner, who had qualified in the 8th WP(C).9385/14 7 semester final examinations and who was awaiting the results of the supplementary examinations could make an application to the 3rd respondent-College. The delay in publication of results of the supplementary examinations was the only reason for the petitioners graduate certificate being not produced in time. In such circumstance, this Court deems it fit that Exhibit P11 be set aside and the Controller of Examinations be directed to register the petitioners' name sent from the 3rd respondent-College for M.Tech course for the 2013-14 batch. I do so. Writ petition allowed. No costs. SD/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs