ANU GEORGE Vs. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION ACCREDITATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this case is whether a person can be denied his rights merely because he could not perform an act or comply with a condition that is impossible to perform or comply with. The relevance of the "Doctrine of Impossibility" and its applicability in the matters relating to legal rights are also to be considered. The brief facts that are necessary to adjudicate the said issue are as follows: The petitioners have acquired Degree of Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Agriculture, from Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Karunya Nagar, Coimbatore. They had undergone the said course during the academic year 2017-18 and completed it in 2021. Exts.P1 to P4 are the degree certificates of the petitioners. To apply for various posts through the Kerala Public Service Commission, an equivalency certificate has to be obtained from any of the Universities in Kerala where similar courses are conducted. The petitioners have approached the fourth respondent University, for the said purpose. The same was declined as per Exts.P17 and P18. The reason for the rejection of the petitioners' requests for equivalency certificates is that the institute in which the petitioners underwent the course did not have accreditation from the ICAR (Indian Council for Agricultural Research) during the period of their study. It is in these circumstances that this writ petition is filed by petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The contention raised by the petitioners is that, the petitioners are the students of the first batch of the institution, and as far as the accreditation of ICAR is concerned, the same is governed by Ext.P9 guidelines. As per clause 4 of the guidelines, the Higher Agricultural Institutes shall be eligible to apply for accreditation if they have a record of at least one batch of students passed out and fulfil the other conditions or are covered by the other provisions, if any. Therefore, it was pointed out that, by virtue of the stipulations contained therein, the accreditation of the institution could have been secured by the institution only after the first batch of the students, to which the petitioners belong, have completed their course. In the case of the petitioners, after successful completion of the course of the first batch to which the petitioners belonged, the institution applied for accreditation and as evidenced by Ext.P10, the said institution was granted accreditation from 11/10/2022 to 10/10/2027 for a period of five years. Therefore, it was pointed out that, as the accreditation was possible only after the completion of the first batch of students, it was not practically possible for the petitioners to comply with the condition, which was insisted by the respondent University for issuing the equivalency certificate. The petitioners also relied on the Ext.P11 notice issued by the ICAR, which provides for exemption to the first batch of the students, taking note of this eventuality, from the requirement of obtaining accreditation to pursue further studies. The reliefs in the writ petition are sought in such circumstances.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been submitted by respondents 4 and 5 denying the averments made in the writ petition. According to them, as per Sec. 18 Sub-sec. (2)(k) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act, the Academic Council has to take a decision with regard to the requirements for issuing equivalency certificates to the degree certificates of other Universities and to grant recognition of examination of the other Universities. In exercise of the said powers, the Academic Council specifically took a decision with respect to the issuance of an equivalency certificate, vide Ext R4(b), as per which, the institution must have accreditation of ICAR, as on the date on which the applicant took admission. Therefore, it was contended that, since the accreditation of the institution in which the petitioners had completed the course was granted only after completion of the course the petitioners, no equivalency certificate, as requested by them, can be given. Therefore, they sought the dismissal of the writ petition.