Point of Law: Hon'ble Supreme Court directed regularization of her admission as a One Time Measure, but without making it a precedent.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The controversy in this case has its genesis on the fact that petitioner was admitted to M.A. (English) by the St. Albert’s College, Ernakulam - of which the 2nd respondent is its Principal, allegedly without him having acquired the minimum qualifications required for the same.

2. The petitioner asserts that he had all the eligibility, as are mandated and requisite under the applicable Rules and Regulations; and that it is after verifying his credentials that the 3rd respondent had admitted him to the course in question. He says that, however, when his papers were forwarded to the 1st respondent-Mahatma Gandhi University (M.G. University for short) for registration, it has been rejected through Exts.P7 and P8 for the reason that his qualifying examination was not valid or eligible, as per the applicable Regulations of the University.

3. Sri. K.B. Gangesh-learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that Exts.P7 and P8 are wholly improper and issued without proper application of mind, because his client had been admitted to the College on the basis of the Prospectus approved by the University for the year 2017. He submitted that there was no inhibiting restrictions in the said Prospectus, as has now been stated in Exts.P7 and P8 and therefore, that said orders are illegal and untenable.

4. In response, however, Sri. Surin George Ipe-learned Standing Counsel for the M.G. University, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P5 Prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Courses for the year 2018 approved by his client, a candidate can obtain admission to the M.A. course only if he/she obtained 50% marks in Part I English, comprising of three papers; and 45% marks in Part III subjects (main and subsidiaries). He pointed out that, even going by the petitioner’s admitted qualifications, he had completed his degree with only one paper in English and therefore, that this falls foul of the specific requirements in the afore mentioned Prospectus. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. Sri. Sherry J. Thomas-learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-College, conceded that it was his client who had admitted the petitioner after evaluation of the credentials. He pointed out that the admission was offered based on Ext.R3(a) Prospectus, which was the one available and known to his client, wherein, the afore mentioned requirement of a candidate to have qualified English through three papers is conspicuously absent. He submitted that his client had acted faithfully because the decision to admit students like the petitioner were taken under the advice of the Academic Council of the College, which contains three nominees of the University, who are all eminent Professors. He submitted that his client was not aware of Ext.P5 Prospectus, which is stated to be one brought into force by the University for the year 2018; but that he was under the legitimate impression that the earlier Prospectus, namely Ext.R3(a), held the field, based on which the petitioner was granted admission. He concluded the submissions saying that his client has committed no wrong because he was only acting under the advise of the Academic Council and if there was any change in the Prospectus of the year 2017, it ought to have been brought to his notice by the nominees of the University, whose presence in the Academic Council is meant for such purposes. He thus prayed that no orders be issued against his client.

6. The rival submissions of the parties as afore would render it perspicuous that the real controversy is not between the petitioner and the College, but between the College and the University. I say so because, the University takes the stand that petitioner’s admission could have been offered only as per Ext.P5 Prospectus, which they say was the amended one; while the College says that they prepared Ext.R3(a) Prospectus for the year 2018, being guided by the Prospectus for the earlier year, since they were n