VISHNU V MUTHALALI PARAMBU Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an undergraduate student who had sought for admission to the Master of Business Administration Course conducted by the 2nd respondent, affiliated to the 1st respondent. While the petitioner and other applicants were considered for admission, it is admitted that the petitioner had secured only 46% marks in the qualifying examination. When the University directed the petitioner to produce the mark list the petitioner submitted before the University that he had applied for revaluation and that he expects that he would get the qualifying marks on revaluation. Hence the petitioner was admitted to the course subject, to the result of the revaluation. As per Ext.R1(a) the petitioner also gave an undertaking that if he fails to get the qualifying marks, he would forfeit his admission. It is not disputed that the petitioner could not get the qualifying marks in revaluation.

(2.) The petitioner obviously could not have continued in the course as per the undertaking, Ext.Rf1(a). The petitioner but approached this Court, challenging the prescription in the prospectus, and the requirement of 50% marks in Part III subjects, as violating the statutory prescription. Regulation made by the Academic Council prescribed 50% marks in aggregate in the degree examination as also 50% in Part III, as the eligibility criteria, was also challenged. The Regulation evidenced by Ext.P6 was also challenged by way of amendment. The amended writ petition has been filed, which is brought up, for consideration by this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Kerala University First Statutes, in Chapter 23B prescribes the qualification for admission to the MBA course and the same speaks only of a pass in the Bachelor Degree examination. The present prescription in the prospectus produced as Ext.P1 is said to violate the Statute. The Academic Council also, according to the learned counsel, does not have the power to go against the statute. Though Section 25 confers certain powers on the Academic Council, by the words employed in Section 25 of the Kerala University Act, the powers conferred are subject to the Statute. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a decision M.J Varghese v. Director, Medical Education, Trivandrum, 1988 AIR(Ker) 200) wherein this Court had considered a similar issue and held that the prospectus cannot go against the statutory provisions, since the former is only in the nature of an administrative instruction.