KUMARI KANAKAKUMAR P V Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a candidate for Pre-degree course. She had completed her 10th standard secondary school examination in the year 1995. She was admitted to the 2nd respondent college under the Mahatma Gandhi University . While so, prior to the first year Pre-degree Examination, petitioner was informed that she is not eligible for writing the examination since she had completed c. B. S. E. through compartmental system. Hence, she filed the above Original petition seeking to quash Ext. P7 memo or in the alternative to issue of a writ of mandamus to the University to re-consider the memo. She has also prayed for an order to declare that she is eligible to pursue her higher studies in the university.

(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the University took notice of the matter on 11. 4. 1997 and has filed a counter affidavit. According to the Standing Counsel, the petitioner is not eligible to be admitted to the pre-degree course at all. The University does not recognise the examination taken under the compartmental system and such a decision was taken by the Vice chancellor in the place of the Academic Council in the year 1982. The said circular dated 4. 5. 1992 had been communicated to all the Principals of the affiliated Colleges. According to him, if the petitioner had disclosed about compartmental examination and that she had a completed the course by compartmental system, she would not have been admitted to the course at all. By making wrong representation in her application, she got the admission. That means, she knows fully well that she is not eligible to be admitted if she had taken the course by compartmental system. Therefore, pleading ignorance ats this stage and claiming to write the examination, cannot be sustained. LEARNED standing counsel also submits that in the absence of Academic Council, the Vice chancellor was empowered to take a decision under S. 10 (7) of the Mahatma Gandhi university Act. Therefore, the University is empowered to recognise the examination and in this case they have not recognised the examination taken under compartmental system. He also submits that as far as Mahatma Gandhi university is concerned, no other Higher Secondary Course coming under the CBSE or any other pattern is recognised if itis taken by compartmental system. Therefore, the petitioner cannot alone be granted exemption.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel, the Academic Council was not functioning in this University from 29. 11. 1988 to 8. 10. 1995. In the absence of Academic Council, S. 10 (7) of the Act enables the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision in the academic matters. It is further stated that after the constitution of the Academic Council, the decision taken by the Vice Chancellor in the absence of Academic Council was ratified. One of the decisions that was taken by the Vice Chancellor in reference to academic matter was the recognition regarding the compartmental examination. The Vice Chancellor took the decision, after considering the matter in detail, not to permit the students who have passed All India Secondary Examination conducted by the central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi compartmentally, for higher studies in this University.