PRASANTH PRASANNAN Vs. JAIN MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the Writ Appeals, issue involved is one and the same i.e. about the validity of Ext.P8 produced in W.A. No. 31/2010. The learned Single Judge found that Ext.P8 issued by the Vice Chancellor under Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act is ultravires his powers because no emergency existed to interfere with academic standards prescribed by the Academic Council which required passing of first year B.Pharm. examination in all subjects for writing the second year B.Pharm. examination. The Vice Chancellor has diluted the course regulations originally prescribed by the Academic Council and approved by the Syndicate vide Ext.P8 whereunder promotion to the second year is made possible even without passing the first year examination. Even though we do not find anything wrong in the finding of the learned Single Judge that no emergency existed for the Vice Chancellor to interfere with the academic regulations, we notice that the Academic Council and the Syndicate have approved Ext.P8 issued by the Vice Chancellor. So much so, Ext.P8 takes effect from the date of the order. So long as the Single Judge does not find anything wrong with the dilution of academic standards by the Academic Council and by the Syndicate, we find no justification for the Single Judge to interfere with Ext.P8. Accordingly Writ Appeal Nos. 31 and 32 of 2010 are allowed by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and by upholding Ext.P8 as confirmed by the Academic Council and the Syndicate. So far as other Writ Appeals are concerned, there will be direction to the University to decide eligibility of the candidates based on Ext.P8 upheld by this judgment.