Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
JASNA JALEEL V.A. – Appellant
Versus
THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 34377 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SHRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN, SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI, SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN, SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K., SMT.SHILPA P.S., SHRI.UNNIKRISHNAN H., SHRI.ASWIN P.S., SMT.SHRIYA MERLIN MAXWELL
For the Respondents: SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON, SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON, S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SRI.P.SANJAY, SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR, SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH), SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN, SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P., SHRI.MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A, SMT.MEERA R. MENON, SMT. O.M. SHALIN, FOR DSGI. SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE
The court affirms that compliance with procedural requirements by educational institutions must be acknowledged, enabling students to receive necessary certifications for their completed courses.
Headnote:The matter revolves around the issuance of the equivalency certificate for the petitioner, who completed a Three Year Unitary L.L.B Course. It was contended that the eligibility certificate was not issued due to the off-campus center's non-approval. The court recognized the validity of the approval by the UGC and directed the University to proceed with the issuance of the equivalency certificate. Key issues include the compliance report by Jain University approved by UGC and resolving eligibility based on established facts. The petition is granted and the necessary certificate must be issued forthwith.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks an equivalency certificate for llb course. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments pertain to the approval status of the institution. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court recognizes ugc's approval and compliance. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2025 The petitioner is studying for Three Year Unitary L.L.B Course in the 6th respondent Law College. The petitioner is in a predicament since her degree certificate and final semester mark list are not being issued after completion of the course for non- production of the eligibility/equivalency certificate. Although petitioner submitted an online application before the 2nd respondent University for obtaining the equivalency certificate, the same has not been issued.
Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only reason for not issuing the equivalency certificate is that the off campus centre of the Jain University, through which the petitioner pursued her studies, is not approved by the University Grants Commission. It is contended that the said reason cannot hold good, inasmuch as the University Grants Commission has approved the off-campus study centre.
3. I heard the learned Central Government Counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent college.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the University refers to Ext.P9 to point out that the ex post facto approval for the off-campus centre, Kochi, was granted, subject to the Jain University complying with certain conditions, but no material is produced to prove such compliance.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P13 communication issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India/7th respondent.
6. Being contextually relevant, the last paragraph of Ext.P13 is extracted herein below;
“ In this regard, it is informed the UGC Expert Committee verified and accepted the compliance report of the Institution. The report of the committee was considered and approved by the commission in its 588th meeting (Item No.2.08) held on
13.03.2025.”
The above extracted paragraph unequivocally shows that the compliance report submitted by the Jain University pursuant to Ext.P9 was considered and approved by the UGC in its 588 Meeting. As such, the objection on the premise that the off-campus centre, where the petitioner pursued her degree studies, has not been approved by the UCG cannot be countenanced.
In the result the writ petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to issue the equivalency certificate applied by the petitioner, expeditiously.
