Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 53081
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
ABIN PETER – Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL MUHAMMED ABDURAHMAN MEMORIAL ORPHANAGE COLLEGE – Respondent
WP(C)/470/2018
SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SRI.FRANCO T.J., SRI.V.R.SASSIDHARAN
Educational institutions are mandated to process equivalency certificates promptly to ensure students' rights in participating in examinations.
Headnote:
Examinations - Higher Education - Equivalent Qualification - Section 4 of Educational Standards Act - The court directed the university to decide on the equivalency application, emphasizing timely processing of requests and ensuring students can participate in examinations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student with a B.Tech degree, was denied permission to sit for the M.C.J exam due to non-processing of his equivalency certificate application.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the university must address the equivalency request and provide a timely decision to ensure the petitioner can take the necessary examinations.
Issues: Whether the university's delay in deciding the equivalency application infringes on the petitioner's right to appear in examinations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that educational institutions must process equivalency requests within a reasonable time frame to uphold students' rights to participate in exams.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with directions for timely processing of the equivalency request.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition had been filed seeking directions to permit the petitioner to appear in the 3rd semester M.C.J examinations as also seeking directions to pass orders on Ext.P8 request made by the petitioner in the light of Exts.P4, P5 and P6. The petitioner, who is a student of 3rd semester M.C.J course submits that he has a B.Tech degree in Electronics & Communication Engineering from the Indira Gandhi National Open University. He has made Ext.P8 application for equivalency certificate. Since no orders are passed thereon, the petitioner was not permitted to write the examinations. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the petitioner has attended the examination of 3rd semester but the results were not declared.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent University, I am of the opinion that a decision has to be taken by the University on Ext.P8 request made by the petitioner taking note of Exts.P4 to P6 as well.
3. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P8 and pass orders thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in the light of Exts.P4, P5 and P6. Once orders are passed on Ext.P8, consequential steps shall be taken by the University without any further delay.
The writ petition is disposed of.
