Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A.A., JJ.
Anu George and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board Represented By Its Secretary and ors.– Respondents
WP(C) NO. 21154 of 2024
Decided On : 26-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Elvin Peter P.J. (Sr.), K.R.Ganesh, Gouri Balagopal, Sreelekshmi Ben
For the Respondent: M.V.Anandan - SC
IMPORTANT POINT
The doctrine of impossibility, as applied in this case, establishes that the law does not compel a person to perform something impossible, and impossibility to perform is a valid excuse. The denial of opportunities based on an impossible condition violates the principles of natural equity and is not legally sustainable.
Headnote:
Doctrine of Impossibility - Equivalency Certificate for B.Sc. (Honours) in Agriculture - Section 18 Sub-section (2)(k) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act - Ext.P9 guidelines - Ext.P10 - Ext.P11 - Ext.R4(b) - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129] - State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another [(2011) 7 SCC 639]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought equivalency certificates for their B.Sc. (Honours) in Agriculture from a university, which were denied due to lack of accreditation from the ICAR during the period of their study.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, being part of the first batch of the institution, were unable to comply with the accreditation requirement as it was only granted after their completion of the course. The court also noted that the ICAR had provided a specific exemption for the first batch of students, and the denial of equivalency certificates based on accreditation was unjustifiable and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to equivalency certificates for their degree, despite the lack of accreditation from the ICAR during their study period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the doctrine of impossibility, citing relevant legal principles and precedents, to conclude that the denial of equivalency certificates based on accreditation was unjustifiable and violated the rights of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to issue equivalency certificates to the petitioners without insisting on ICAR accreditation, taking note of the specific exemption provided by the ICAR in Ext.P11. The certificates were to be issued within one month from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
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:
“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P17 and P18 orders and quash the same;
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to issue equivalency certificate to the petitioners as has been granted to their juniors;
(iii) To declare that the petitioners are entitled to be granted equivalency certificate by the 4th respondent;
(iv) It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of English translation of Vernacular Documents.
(v) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
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 Section 18 Su
