Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal. Civil Appeal No. 2252 of 2006. Date of judgment 21-10-08
Background
The first respondent was admitted to a Law College under the appellant university for LL.B programme. The admission was after common admission test and the academic qualification required for admission was as follows;
"Candidates who have passed Bachelor's Degree of Guru Nanak Dev University or any other equivalent examination recognized as such by the University with not less than 45% marks; or Master's Degree of Guru Nanak Dev University or of any other University recognized as equivalent thereto."
The respondent have passed MA degree of Annamalai University through Open University System (OUS). He wrote the first semester exam and undergone the second semester as well. Thereafter he was asked not to continue as he was lacking entry level qualification. Incidentally OUS system of Annamalai University does not require a Bachelor degree qualification to undergo a MA programme. Against the order of expulsion the respondent approached the HC and got a favourable order. The order is appealed here.
Contentions
The appellants have raised three contentions
1. The word 'or' in the entry level qualification should be read as, 'in case the applicant does not have 45% marks in the Bachelor programme, MA degree could be considered'. In essence it should not be read disjunctively but as creating a conditional clause.
2. A person not having a Bachelor degree cannot have a Masters degree and therefore his Masters degree is irregular.
3. The OUS programme of the Annamalai University is not recognised by the appellant university, whereas Correspondence as well as Distance Education courses are recognised. The Annamali University itself has made distinctions between these three programmes.
Decision
The court could not find merit in the first two contentions. On the first contention court said that the word 'or' has in certain occasions have been read as 'and', but the current situation does not call for it. Also "... the word `or' cannot obviously be read as referring to a conditional alternative, then such condition is not specified."
The second contention was rejected because Annamalai University provide for such admission.
The third contention was found to be valid. "The first respondent has passed his M.A. (OUS) from Annamalai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that appellant university has recognized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to M.A. of appellant university. Thus it has to be held that first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for admission to three year law course."
Though the respondent is technically ineligible to be admitted, the court in the present circumstances; being allowed to write examination, before which it was the responsibility of the university to verify eligibility and having won the case at HC and continued his studies, wished not to interfere with his career and ordered continuation of enrolment as students or if he has already completed the course for declaration of the result.
Background
The first respondent was admitted to a Law College under the appellant university for LL.B programme. The admission was after common admission test and the academic qualification required for admission was as follows;
"Candidates who have passed Bachelor's Degree of Guru Nanak Dev University or any other equivalent examination recognized as such by the University with not less than 45% marks; or Master's Degree of Guru Nanak Dev University or of any other University recognized as equivalent thereto."
The respondent have passed MA degree of Annamalai University through Open University System (OUS). He wrote the first semester exam and undergone the second semester as well. Thereafter he was asked not to continue as he was lacking entry level qualification. Incidentally OUS system of Annamalai University does not require a Bachelor degree qualification to undergo a MA programme. Against the order of expulsion the respondent approached the HC and got a favourable order. The order is appealed here.
Contentions
The appellants have raised three contentions
1. The word 'or' in the entry level qualification should be read as, 'in case the applicant does not have 45% marks in the Bachelor programme, MA degree could be considered'. In essence it should not be read disjunctively but as creating a conditional clause.
2. A person not having a Bachelor degree cannot have a Masters degree and therefore his Masters degree is irregular.
3. The OUS programme of the Annamalai University is not recognised by the appellant university, whereas Correspondence as well as Distance Education courses are recognised. The Annamali University itself has made distinctions between these three programmes.
Decision
The court could not find merit in the first two contentions. On the first contention court said that the word 'or' has in certain occasions have been read as 'and', but the current situation does not call for it. Also "... the word `or' cannot obviously be read as referring to a conditional alternative, then such condition is not specified."
The second contention was rejected because Annamalai University provide for such admission.
The third contention was found to be valid. "The first respondent has passed his M.A. (OUS) from Annamalai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that appellant university has recognized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to M.A. of appellant university. Thus it has to be held that first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for admission to three year law course."
Though the respondent is technically ineligible to be admitted, the court in the present circumstances; being allowed to write examination, before which it was the responsibility of the university to verify eligibility and having won the case at HC and continued his studies, wished not to interfere with his career and ordered continuation of enrolment as students or if he has already completed the course for declaration of the result.
No comments:
Post a Comment