REMYA REMESH Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved with Ext. P12, which removed the petitioner from the rolls of the respondent University. The admitted facts are that; the petitioner was provisionally admitted to M. Tech (Full Time), 2014 in Electronics and Communication (Wireless Technology) in the School of Engineering, affiliated to the respondent University, on spot admission. At the time of admission, no mark -list was produced and the petitioner was provisionally admitted, subject to production of mark -list. When the mark -list was produced, subsequently it was noticed by the respondent University that the petitioner had failed in the sixth semester B. Tech examination and had appeared for the supplementary examination along with the final year 8th semester examination of the graduate degree. The petitioner was, hence, found to be ineligible to apply for the Common Admission Test of 2014 as per the admission procedure prescribed in the prospectus of the University at Ext. P13. It was also in consequence of such disqualification in threshold eligibility; that the petitioner was issued with Ext. P12.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would contend that, in fact, the admission was made by the University after verifying the entire mark -list and the petitioner, having been admitted and continued for sometime in the course, cannot be sent away, merely for the reason that, she had not qualified in the regular 6th semester examinations. The petitioner, having qualified in the supplementary examinations along with final year examination, is a graduate degree holder, who is entitled to continue in the post -graduate course, is the contention. Learned counsel would contend that, Ext. P12 was issued without notice to the petitioner.

(3.) THE prescription in Ext. P13 is very clear. Only students, who had appeared in the final semester of the qualifying graduate degree were permitted to appear for the Common Admission Test and that too, only if they had appeared for the examinations and the results were pending publication. The petitioner had, with open eyes, applied for the same, knowing fully well that she was not qualified to participate in the Common Admission Test. Petitioner's contention, that the mark -lists were produced and the University had verified the same before admitting the petitioner, is belied by the undertaking in Ext. R1(a). Petitioner, admittedly, was a student, who was admitted on spot admission when verification of mark -list and certificate was not carried out and the petitioner had undertaken production of the same. Ext. R1(a) indicates that the petitioner was obliged to produce the mark -list on or before 20.7.2014. The respondent University submits that they had waited for the production of the mark -list till Ext. P12 was passed only since, the petitioner was appointed to a reserved vacancy and the last date of admissions being over, no other candidate could be accommodated thereon. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had appeared for the examination knowing fully well that she was not eligible to participate in the Common Admission Test.