Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
N.S. Saravanan – Petitioner
Versus
Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Anna University Campus, Guindy, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 19062 of 2017 & W.M.P. No. 20580 of 2017
Decided On : 09-04-2018
For the Petitioner:V. Govardhanan for M/s. S. Sathish Rajan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:M. Vijayakumar, Standing Counsel, V. Annalakshmi, Govt. Advocate, R. Gopinath, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the classification of degrees is determined by the University's Regulations, which consider CGPA and authorized break of study.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Educational Qualifications - Regulations 16.1 to 16.3 - The court discussed Regulations 16.1 to 16.3 of the University's Regulations, 2013, which determine the classification of degrees based on CGPA and authorized break of study. The petitioner sought a declaration of passing in I Class, but the court held that as there was a break in the approval of the course, and the course was approved only in 2014, the petitioner cannot be declared to have passed in I Class in terms of Regulation 16.3.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings related to the approval of his M.Arch course and to direct the award of a First Class Grade instead of a Second Class Grade.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the petitioner, having been admitted into the course without the initial approval of his admission, is not entitled to be awarded I Class.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who completed his M.Arch course with a CGPA of 7.55, was entitled to be declared to have passed the examination in I Class.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as there was a break in the approval of the course, and the course was approved only in 2014, the petitioner cannot be declared to have passed in I Class in terms of Regulation 16.3.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The W.M.P. was closed.
The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned proceedings in Lr.No.7121/COE/C33/2017-19613, dated 10.06.2017 of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to declare that the petitioner who studied M.Arch--Environmental Architecture (Part Time) Course bearing Reg.No.712113865501, has completed his Course without any break up and on issuance of such declaration by the fourth respondent, direct the second respondent to award the petitioner with First Class Grade instead of Second Class Grade and to remove the word Flexible Mode and communicate the same to the third respondent for issuance of fresh Mark Sheets, Provisional Certificate, Consolidated Statement Grades, Master's Degree and Course Equivalence Certificate to the petitioner, after carrying out necessary changes within a time frame.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he has completed B.Arch in 1998 from Madras University through Adhiyamaan Engineering College, Hosur. He has been practising as an Architect and thereafter, he entered into teaching profession and in the Academic Year 2011-2012, he joined M.Arch-Environmental Architecture (Flexible Mode) Course in the fifth respondent-institution under the Career Advancement Scheme. However, his admission to the said M.Arch course was not approved by the fourth respondent-Directorate of Technical Education for want of consolidated mark sheets of B.Arch Course. It is the further case of the petitioner that when he completed his B.Arch Course, at the time, there was no such practice of issuing the consolidated mark sheet. This explanation given by the petitioner was not accepted by the fourth respondent. Hence, the fifth respondent-institution filed W.P.No.1204 of 2012 seeking permission for the students to sit for the M.Arch First Year examination and the fifth respondent-institution also filed W.P.No.16301 of 2012 to quash the order dated 19.01.2012 refusing to approve the petitioner's admission. This Court, by order dated 18.01.2012, permitted the petitioner and other similarly placed students in the fifth respondent-institution to write the First Semester Examination. However, on 03.08.2012, both the said Writ Petitions were disposed of, permitting the petitioner to approach the Controller of Examinations of the Madras University, who in turn was directed to consider the request of the fifth respondent-School to grant the consolidated mark sheets to the students and on receipt of the same, the fourth respondent was directed to consider the request of the petitioner with regard to the approval of the petitioner's admission in M.Arch Course. Thereafter, by communication dated 11.03.2014, the fourth respondent granted re-admission of the petitioner in his M.Arch Course in the fifth respondent-institution. Subsequently, the petitioner was permitted to take up II Semester Examination in June 2014, and he completed his M.Arch Course in June 2016 with Cumulative Great Point Average (CGPA) 7.55.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is eligible to be awarded I Class as per Regulation 16.2 of the first respondent-University's Regulations, 2013. Without any rhyme or reason, the petitioner was allowed to write the examination belatedly and awarded II Class and on account of the delay/lapse on the part of the respondents 1 to 4, the award of graduation of M.Arch to the petitioner under II Class is incorrect and there is no break as contemplated under Regulation 16.2 of the said Regulations and that the fourth respondent, without any application of mind, has passed the impugned order and not awarded I Class to the petitioner. The fifth respondent-institution, on behalf of the petitioner, has made a representation, but as on date, there is no response. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.
4. The responden
