SANDEEP R Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra - Court appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, rejecting the reliefs claimed by the appellant challenging Ext. P2. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant seems to be that the University having allowed the appellant to appear for the two semesters could not have proceeded to cancel the registration of the appellant on the ground that the required percentage of marks in Mathematics for an OBC candidate like the appellant is 45% and the appellant has secured only 43% mark. If the very admission is against the procedure contemplated and by admitting an ineligible candidate one cannot claim principle of estoppel against the University.

(2.) The case of the appellant that the college committed the mistake unknowingly or otherwise and the appellant cannot be punished, who is totally ignorant of such mistake, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it is the University which has the right to say what is the minimum marks required for admission to a particular course. It may not be out of place to mention that even the appellant would have gone through the required percentage of marks at the time of applying for the course and it would be within the knowledge of college and the appellant what exactly would be the required marks for an OBC in Mathematics to get admission to B.Tech. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in Medical Council of India v. Manas Ranjan Behera and Others, 2010 KHC 6006 : 2010 (1) SCC 173 and Shamin Sainudheen v. Medical Council of India, 2010 (4) KHC 204 : 2010 (4) KLT 103 : ILR 2010 (4) Ker. 183. We cannot place reliance on these decisions as in various subsequent decisions arising out of the judgments from the High Court of Kerala and also from the High Court of Karnataka the Supreme Court has time and again said that once a candidate is ineligible to get admission to any course for violating the norms fixed for such admission, it cannot be set right with the intervention of the Courts. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the claim sought for by the appellant.