Back
2008(6) Supreme 469
Supreme Court of india
Ashok Bhan and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Gis Jose & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5550 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3569 of 2007)
Decided on : 08-09-08
(2003) 7 SCC 719 – Relied upon.
Facts of the Case :
Issue in consideration in present case was regarding validity of grant of admission to Petitioner in M.Sc. Computer Science course, inspite of her securing only 53.3% marks in her qualifying examination against minimum requirement of cut-off marks, which had been fixed by university as 55%.
Findings of the Court :
Even though Division Bench held that such irregular admissions were likely to pave the way for foul play in the hands of unscrupulous college management, yet further proceeded to grant relief to the student, in view of the fact that the student had taken the examinations of semesters Ist to IVth and had undergone the full course. Such course could not have been taken. Unscrupulous college management had obviously given an irregular admission and because of that admission, at least one student was deprived of admission to the M.Sc. Computer Course, so also it was a complete discrimination between respondent and other students, who had also scored 53.3% marks and were not given admission on that count. Controller of Examination although subsequently rejected her application for first and second semester examination yet the college proceeded to allow her to write her examination of those semesters and also continued her admission. The misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules. Instantly, college where the student was admitted, in breach of all possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but also to write the examination which was totally illegal. Appeal allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgment
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.It is once again, a Judgment has come from the High Court in complete derogation of the observations of this Court against the compromising of the educational standards in the matter of admissions to a particular course by showing unnecessary sympathies. The Mahatma Gandhi University has come up against the Judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court whereby the Division Bench allowing the appeal of a student, has directed the University to declare the withheld result of the student. The direction though was, of course, without creating precedence, as a special case.
3.It so happened that Petitioner, Gis Jose was admitted to the M.Sc. Computer Science course. She had secured only 53.3% marks in her qualifying examination against the minimum requirement of cut-off marks, which had been fixed by the university as 55%. Obviously in total derogation of this fact, the student was admitted. The error, when found by the University, the Controller of Examination wrote a letter dated 01.11.2004 to the Principal, B.P.C. College, Piravom, pointing out the irregular admission to the M.Sc. Computer Science course. It was pointed out that the student’s application for Ist and IInd semester Examinations, held in April and July, 2004 respectively, were already rejected on the ground that the student had scored only 53 % marks and her admission was in violation of the Admission Rules framed by the University and still the Principal had allowed the student to continue in M.Sc. Computer Science to complete the course and to write her examination. It was pointed out that the University was viewing the matter very seriously and the Principal was further directed to cancel the admission given to the student and to report the matter within 10 days. It is obvious from this letter that the earlier applications dated 22.4.04 and 26.7.04 were also rejected by the University. A memo was ultimately sent on 25.2.2005 and the student was informed that the University had rejected her request for continuing studies in M.Sc. Computer Science in the college. This was on the basis of the Minutes of the Academic Council Meeting dated 23.12.2004 where the Academic Council had refused to allow the student to continue her studies and yet the student was allowed to continue with the course in complete and total derogation of the directions given by the Controller of Examinations.
4.The student came before the Kerala High Court by way of a writ petition which was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge of that Court, as the student did not have the basic qualification for admission to the course in accordance with the University Regulations. It was also found that when the application for the Ist semester examination was submitted, the same was not accepted by the University and the same was the fate of the IInd semester examination also yet the student was permitted to continue her studies.
5.An appeal was filed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench has allowed the appeal. For that purpose, the Division Bench relied on the earlier Division Bench decision of that Court in W.A. No. 1040 of 2003. In that, the Division Bench had taken the view that since the student had completed the course and had taken the examination, the results would have to be declared. There the Court had also taken the view that at that juncture, the student could not be singled out. The Division Bench “further in view of the inconsistency” chose to grant relief and further observed that this did not adversely affect the interest of others and that it was too late for anybody to contend that by treating her admission in nullity, somebody would have gained anything. The Division Bench also took the view that the student had not misrepresented regarding her marks and yet she was given the admission as a normal student.
6.It was further observed by the Division Bench that a strict approach “disrobbing off the fruits of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
