LexMAHATAMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY & ANR. versus GIS JOSE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 201 MAHATAMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY & ANR. v. GIS JOSE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5550 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 [ASHOK BHAN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] A B Education - Admission to Masters Course - Violation of Admission Rules framed by University - Principal allowing student to complete the course and write examination - c Legality of - Held: Illegal - Misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules - Thus, order of Single Judge of High Court that student cannot be allowed to continue the course as she did not have basic qualification for admission to the course as per the University Regulations, 0 upheld - Order of Division Bench directing the University to declare the withheld result of student set aside. The respondent scored less marks in her qualifying examination against the minimum requirement for M.Sc. Computer Science Course -and was admitted to the E course. The University directed the Principal to cancel the admission given to respondent and also rejected her application for 1st and llnd semester examination. However, the Principal allowed the respondent to continue in M.Sc. Course and to write the examination. F Thereafter, the Academic Counsel rejected the respondent's request for continuing the studies in M.Sc. Course and sent her a Memo. Respondent filed writ petition which was dismissed as she did not have basic qualification for admission to the course. However, the G Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court 201 H 202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1 The unscrupulous college management gave 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 s students, who had also scored 53.3% marks and were r not given admission on that count. It cannot be understood as to how such course could have been taken. The Controller of Examination had subsequently rejected her application for the 1st and llnd semester examination c 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 not have the idea of all these irregularities. It was obvious that there was an 0 unholy hand shake of the student and the college authorities. [Para 6] [205-F-G 206-G-H] ~ 1.2 There is nothing on record to support the fact that the Vice Chancellor had allowed her to continue with the course. Further, such permission was clearly incorrect E 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 F 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 Ill and IV semesters. All this cannot be approved. [Para 7] [206 B-D] 1.3 The misplaced sympathies should not have been G shown in total breach of the Rules. That is precisely what has happened. 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. The judgment of 1-1 the Division Bench of High Court is set aside and the MAHATAMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY & ANR v. GIS 203 JOSE & ORS. judgment of the Single Judge of High Court is dismissing A the Writ Petition is restored. [Paras 9, 10 and 11] [206 F 207 B,C] Selin Mary Mammen vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors. Civil Appeal No.689 of 2004 decided by Supreme Court on 3.2.2004 - distinguished. B Regional Officer, CBSE vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Ors. 2003 (7) sec 719 - relied on. Case Law Reference 2003 (7) sec 119 Relied on. 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5550 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.7.2006 of the c -J High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2413 of 2005 D C.S. Rajan, M.T. George for the Appellants. B.V. Deepak (for M/s. T.T.K. Deepak & Co.) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPUR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.