P.Sudha v. Bharathidasan University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 14-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.30818 of 2008 andM.P.No.1 of 2009P.Sudha.. Petitioner. Versus1.Bharathidasan University,rep. By its Registrar,Trichirappalli.2. Cauvery College,rep. By its Principal,Annamalai Nagar,Trichirappalli3.Annamalai University,rep. by its Registrar,Annamalai Nagar,Chidambaram.4.Paavai College of Education,rep. by its Principal,Annaipalayam,rasipuram-637001,Namakkal District.5.Periyar University,rep by its Registrar,Salem-636 001... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 5threspondent herein in proceedings PU/R/B5/06486/2008, dated 13.6.2008,and quash the same, further direct the 5th respondent herein to issueEligibility Certificate to the petitioner for B.Ed. course which shehad undergone in the 4th respondent College for the academic year2007-2008 and publish the result pursuant to the Examinationconducted by the 4th respondent college in June 2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner: Mr.P.TamilavelFor Respondents: Mr.V.Govardhanan for M/s.Row & Reddy for R1 Ms.D.Geetha for R3O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner has stated that she had passed the B.A.(Social Work) Degree in the second respondent College in the month ofNovember, 1997. The said course has been approved by the firstrespondent University. The second respondent College is affiliated tothe first respondent University. After completion of her B.A. (SocialWork) Degree course, the petitioner had joined M.A. (English) coursein the year, 2004. The third respondent University had issued theM.A. Degree certificate to the petitioner on her completion of theM.A. Degree course. Thereafter, the petitioner had joined B.A(English-Double Degree) course, recognised by the third respondentUniversity, in the year, 2007. Further, the petitioner had alsojoined M.Phil. (English), in the third respondent University and hadobtained the degree certificate in the year, 2008. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had joined the4th respondent College, affiliated to the fifth respondentUniversity, for pursuing B.Ed. course. After the perusal andverification of the certificates submitted by the petitioner, thefourth respondent College had admitted her to the B.Ed., course. Thepetitioner had completed the course and she had written theexaminations conducted in the month of June, 2008, based on theadmission card issued by the fifth respondent University. While so,the fifth respondent University had issued the impugned order, dated13.6.2008, stating that the petitioner had not been eligible foradmission to the B.Ed., course. Accordingly, it had rejected therequest of the petitioner for the issuance of the eligibilitycertificate. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred thepresent writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.4. The main contentions of the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order of the fifthrespondent, dated 13.6.2008, has been passed without properlyconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case. The said orderhad been issued by the fifth respondent, without jurisdiction.Further, the fifth respondent University is estopped from rejectingthe request for the eligibility certificate, as the said Universityhad issued the examination card to the petitioner for writing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examinations of the B.Ed. course. The fifth respondent University hadissued the impugned order, without considering the letter, dated12.5.2008, issued by the third respondent stating that B.A. (English-Double Degree) course is equivalent to B.A. (English) Regular Degree.Further, the fifth respondent University ought to have consideredthe fact that the petitioner had completed her M.A. (English) Degree,as well as an M.Phil. Degree, in English. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifthrespondent University had contended that the impugned order, dated13.6.2008, had been issued by the fifth respondent University, inaccordance with the guidelines and procedures prescribed foradmission to the B.Ed. course, issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.185,Department of Higher Education, dated 13.6.2005. The eligibilitycriteria for admission to the Bachelor of Education course have beenprescribed in the said guidelines. One of the conditions is that thecandidate applying for admission for the B.Ed. course should havepassed the U.G. Degree examination in the 10 +2 +3 stream, with thesame main subject, in Part III, for which the candidate is seekingadmission. 6. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of thisCourt, dated 24.4.2008, made in W.P.Nos.41881 to 41889 of 2006,upholding the eligibility criteria prescribed for admission, as perthe National Council for Teacher Education. The learned counsel hadalso relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Courtreported in N.Ramesh Vs. Sibi Madan Gabriel (2008 (3) MLJ 255),wherein it had been held that the degrees obtained through the OpenUniversity System can be considered equivalent to a traditionaldegree obtained through the regular system, provided that suchdegrees are in conformity with the relevant statutory provisions,including the rules and regulations holding the field. According tothe learned counsel for the fifth respondent the degrees said to havebeen obtained by the petitioner are not in conformity with theeligibility criteria prescribed for the admission of candidates tothe B.Ed. course. There can be no estoppel in such matters,especially, when the petitioner had been admitted to the B.Ed. courseby the fourth respondent College, in spite of the fact that thepetitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the thirdrespondent University had stated that the said University would notbe responsible for the irregular admissions. It is for the concernedCollege, which sends the names after admitting the candidates for theB.Ed. Course to verify and to check if the candidates possess therequired qualifications. Even if such admissions do not confirm tothe rules and regulations applicable to such admissions, merely forthe reason that the petitioner had been permitted to write theexaminations of the B.Ed. Course, she cannot claim any equity. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Further, the petitioner cannot invoke the principle of estoppel incircumstances where an irregularity has been committed. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on aperusal of the records available, it is clear that the petitioner wasnot in possession of a three year degree, with English as a majorsubject, for being eligible to be admitted to the B.Ed. course in thefourth respondent College. Once it is found that the admission of thepetitioner is in contravention of the rules and the regulationsapplicable to such admissions the said defect cannot be cured merelyfor the reason that the petitioner had been permitted by the thirdrespondent University to write the B.Ed. examinations. The principleof estoppel cannot be applicable to such cases. The initialirregularity committed by the fourth respondent College, in admittingthe petitioner for the B.Ed. Course, cannot be cured by the fact thatshe had obtained subsequent degrees in English, from the thirdrespondent University. In such view of the matter, the writ petitionis liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. However, it isopen to the petitioner to initiate appropriate action against thefourth respondent College for the damages caused to her, if any, byway of appropriate proceedings, in the manner known to law. No costs.Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. cshSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Registrar,Bharathidasan University,Trichirappalli.2. The Registrar,Annamalai University,Annamalai Nagar,Chidambaram.3. The Registrar, Periyar University,Salem-636 001.+ 1 cc to M/s. Row and Reddy, Advocate SR No.31233GR(CO)SR/17.8.2009Writ Petition No.30818 of 2008