Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19079
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
AJMAL NOUSHAD – Appellant
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/23538/2022
ARUN CHANDRAN
Discrepancies due to software errors cannot penalize students, ensuring their right to academic documents.
Headnote:
Higher Education - Admission - Kerala University - Act Section List - The court reiterated that discrepancies due to software errors shouldn't penalize students, affirming earlier judgments and mandating the release of academic documents unless new evidence opposes this.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, having used a provisional mark list and degree certificate from Kerala University to gain admission to another course, sought the issuance of original documents which the University refused, citing discrepancies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no factual difference between the current case and a precedent where similar circumstances warranted relief. It emphasized that the university couldn't penalize students for discrepancies resulting from software errors.
Issues: Whether the refusal by Kerala University to issue original documents was lawful given the circumstances presented by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied precedent that software errors shouldn't detriment students, requiring the university to issue original documents unless compelling evidence against the petitioner emerged.
Final Decision: The court ordered the university to issue the original documents within two weeks.
JUDGMENT
When this matter was called today, the learned counsel for the petitioner, asserted that the issues – both legal and factual - involved in this case, are covered by the judgment of this Court in Anandu A. & Others v. Higher Education Department [2022 (1) KLT 838] and that the declarations therein are in favour of his client.
2. I have examined Anandu A. (supra), and going by the facts recorded therein, I see no difference with the factual matrix, as have been presented in this case.
3. Sri.Arun Chandran – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client has, on the basis of the Provisional Mark List and the Provisional Degree Certificate obtained from the Kerala University, already got admission to another course and is pursuing the same. He submitted that, therefore, refusal of the Kerala University to favour his client with the original Degree Certificate, is illegal and unlawful and contrary to the declarations in Anandu A. (supra).
4. Sri.Thomas Abraham – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University, pertinently submitted that, if the factual situation as pleaded by the petitioner is identical to the one which was noticed by this Court in Anandu A. (supra), then he is also entitled to relief. He submitted that the only issue which the University has to now verify is whether the petitioner herein is identically situated as the petitioners in Anandu A. (supra).
5. When I hear the learned Standing Counsel on the afore lines, it is clear that, whatever be the allegations which the University may make, this Court has already held in Anandu A. (supra) that discrepancies in the marks on account of the software error cannot be attributed to the students, including the petitioner herein. I do not see any difference in the factual scenario involved in these two matters, and I am certainly of the firm view that the petitioner cannot be put to any further detriment, unless the University is able to point out any specific input to his detriment, which they have not until now.
6. In the afore circumstances, I direct the University to issue the original Mark List and the original Degree Certificate to the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, if, within the afore period, the University is to find any circumstance against the petitioner for disallowing the issuance of the original Mark List or the original Degree Certificate, this shall be appropriately notified to him and afford necessary opportunity of being heard, so that he can impel his remedies against the same as per law. This shall also be done within the afore time frame.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/20.7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23538/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COOPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF MARKS CUM GRADE ISUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25.5.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 28.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 14.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.1.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
