Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 76336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TH WEDNESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 21154 OF 2024 PETITIONERS:
1 ANU GEORGE, AGED 26 YEARS D/O. GEORGE. P.K., RESIDING AT PUNCHALAYIL HOUSE, 'ANU VILLA', OER ROAD, THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682301
2 NEEMA JOHNSON, AGED 24 YEARS D/O. JOHNSON, RESIDING AT KANNAMALIYIL HOUSE, SAHAYAGIRI.P.O., PATTOM COLONY, MARAYOOR, IDUKKI, PIN – 685620
3 BENINU.B.S., AGED 26 YEARS S/O. BENSYAR.C., RESIDING AT SIBIYA NIVAS, PONNAMBI, VELLARADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695505
4 LIJITH.K.A., AGED 25 YEARS S/O. ALIAS.K.P., RESIDING AT KUNJIMATTATHIL HOUSE, MARUTHANCHERY, KAIRADY.P.O., NEMMARA, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678510 BY ADVS.
ELVIN PETER P.J. (SR.)
K.R.GANESH GOURI BALAGOPAL SREELEKSHMI BEN RESPONDENTS:
1 THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION ACCREDITATION BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ROOM NO. 332, KAB-II, ICAR, PUSA, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110012
2 THE REGIONAL CENTRE, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION ACCREDITATION BOARD (NAEAB), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF HORTICULTURE RESEARCH, BANGALORE, PIN – 560010
3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN – 695001
4 THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAIN CAMPUS, KAU.
P.O., VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680656
5 THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MAIN CAMPUS, KAU.
P.O., VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680656
6 THE REGISTRAR, KARUNYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCES, KARUNYA NAGAR, COIMBATORE, PIN – 641114 BY ADV ADV M.V.ANANDAN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.06.2024, THE COURT ON 26.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Denying legal rights due to impossibility of compliance with conditions is unjustifiable, especially for first batch students affected by institutional accreditation timelines.
Headnote:(A) Doctrine of Impossibility - Legal rights cannot be denied due to impossibility of compliance with conditions when applicants belong to the first batch of a course and were affected by institutional accreditation timelines. (Paras 8, 11)
(B) Academic Accreditation - The university denied equivalency certificates based on lack of ICAR accreditation at the time of study, which violates principles of reasonable classification and fairness. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners applied for equivalency certificates for their degrees from Karunya Institute, which was denied due to the institution's lack of accreditation from ICAR during their studies, despite provisions allowing exemption for first batch students.
Findings of Court:
The rejection of equivalency certificates on grounds of accreditation is unjustifiable, as the ICAR allows exemptions for first batch students upon course completion.
Issues: Whether circumstances prevented petitioners from obtaining equivalency certificates due to accreditation timing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of rights based on conditions that cannot be met is unsustainable and undermines students' legal rights.
Result: Writ petition allowed, directing issuance of equivalency certificates without requiring ICAR accreditation.
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 Sub-section
