LEKSHMI S. KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are all 4th Semester MBA students of the first respondent University. The petitioners, as per Ext. P2 notification of the first respondent University, sought admission to the two year M.B.A. (Full time) Course, under the Credit and Semester System, at Institute of Management in Kerala, which has around seven centres within the State. They were admitted to the MBA (CSS) course during the academic year 2011 -2013 in the 2nd respondent institute. The eligibility for admission as per Ext. P2 Prospectus was 50% marks in Part -III of the Graduate examination. Admittedly, the petitioners do not have the essential qualification.

(2.) THE first petitioner and the third petitioner have only 47% marks in Part -III of the graduation. The 2nd petitioner obtained 41% marks in Part -III of graduation. Being fully aware that they are ineligible for admission, they appeared for the entrance examination and also secured admission to the 2nd respondent institution. The University at the time of admission does not scrutinise their mark sheets. The scrutiny of mark sheets comes later on. The petitioners' contention is that the Principal of the 2nd respondent told them that they were eligible to be admitted and hence, such admissions were made. However, it is to be noticed that the Principal, who is said to have made such assurance is not impleaded herein.

(3.) BOTH the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the petitioners were aware that they were ineligible and it was not a case, in which the petitioners had at the proper time approached the court of law challenging the ineligibility as declared in the prospectus. Being fully aware of the fact that they were ineligible, the petitioners secured admission and continued in the course. The continuance of the students in the course was also provisional pending scrutiny of the mark sheets. The Hall Tickets issued are seen at Ext. P3 series, wherein it was specifically stated that the candidates are "admitted provisionally". The petitioners obviously did not challenge the provisional admission before the court of law; they willingly awaited the scrutiny. The results were also not published, since the admission was merely provisional. The petitioners took the risk of continuing in the course. Eventually they obtained permission to provisionally appear for the 4th Semester examination, and submitted a representation before the Syndicate. By Ext. P6 it was directed that the petitioners are not eligible for admission and cancellation was effected of the examinations provisionally appeared in.