JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

The appeal is preferred by the University against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, directing the publication of the first semester result, as also the consequential issuance of the Degree Certificate. 2.Learned Standing Counsel, Sri P.C.Sasidharan, points out Chapter XVIII of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977, wherein the eligibility for conferring of Degree of Bachelor of Laws(Three year course)requires that the candidate should have satisfied the eligibility criteria for admission, which is a Degree of the appellant University or a Degree of another University, accepted by the appellant as equivalent thereto. The respondent herein does not satisfy that criteria, since he has obtained a Degree from the Karnataka University under the Open Stream, which is not recognized by the Calicut University. Ext.P14 produced by the petitioner himself is referred to, to argue that only B.A, History and Kannada of the Karnataka State Open University is recognised by the appellant University. It is argued that the Self-Financing College, in which the respondent undertook the Course, admitted him illegally and without verifying the eligibility criteria. It is pointed out that despite the University having permitted the candidate to write the exams, when it comes to the conferment of Degree, the same can be only in accordance with the regulations, which is evident from the First Statutes.

3. The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in M.G.University V Gis Jose [(2008(4) KLT 216(SC)] to urge the proposition that educational standards cannot be compromised by Courts and there is no room for misplaced sympathies, when the rule is otherwise. Reliance is also placed on two unreported decisions, by one of us (KVC.J), to contend that despite the course having been completed, if the eligibility criteria is not met, necessarily there could be no conferment of a Degree.

4. Dr.K.P.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would seek to distinguish the decisions placed reliance on, by the learned Standing Counsel. Reliance is placed on Shri Krishnan V. Kurukshethra Universit y (1976(1)SCC 311), Ashok Chand Singh V.University of Jodhpu r (1989(1)SCC 399), Sanadan Gowda V. Berhampur Universit y (1990(3) SCC 23) and Guru Nanak Dev University V. Sanjaykumar Katwal (2009(1)SCC 610). It is argued that the University though withheld the first semester result, issued the mark list for all the other semesters. There is no response for the application submitted by the appellant, wherein equivalency was sought, for the Degree obtained by the respondent from the Karnataka University.

5. On facts, suffice it to notice that the respondent was admitted in the year 2013-2014 for the three year course in LLB with six semesters. The appellant had obtained BBA in Aviation from the Karnataka University. The results for the first year examination was withheld and as per the direction of the University, the respondent had also submitted an application for equivalence, which is produced as Ext.P11. There was no response to Ext.P11. But later, the respondent was issued with the Hall tickets for the second to sixth semesters, as is seen from Exts.P5 to P9. The respondent was also issued the mark lists for the above semesters, the last of which, for the 6th semester, is produced as Ext.P10. Later, the University refused to issue Degree Certificate upon which the writ petition was filed.

6. Having gone through the decisions cited, there is a clear distinction made, in cases where initially itself, the University objected to the admission of the candidate and those cases in which the admission and continuation in the course were without demur and after completion of the course, the objection having been raised. The Honourable Supreme Court has treated the distinctive facts differently. In Gis Jose [supra], the candidate did not have the minimum cut off marks prescribed for admission to the Post Gr