Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2252 OF 2006

Guru Nanak Dev University … Appellant   

Vs.

Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI :

This  appeal,  by  special  leave,  has  been  filed  by  the

appellant-Guru Nanak  Dev  University  against  the  judgment

dated  5.7.2005  of  a  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of

Punjab & Haryana, whereby the writ petition filed by the first

respondent herein was allowed approving his admission to the

LL.B.  (three  years  professional)  course  at  St.  Soldier  Law

College, Jalandhar, affiliated to the Appellant.  

2. The Government of Punjab authorized Punjab University

to conduct a Common Entrance Test for selection of students

for admission to three year LL.B. (Professional) course for the

session commencing from 2004-2005, for the various colleges

affiliated to or run by the said University and the appellant

university. The first respondent appeared for the entrance test

held on 8.7.2004 and was declared successful.  He attended

the  counselling  and  was  selected  and  was  admitted  to  St.

Soldier Law College at Jalandar (second respondent) affiliated

to appellant university. He paid the tuition fee of Rs.25000/-

to the second respondent and attended college regularly. The

final examinations of first semester  were held in December,

2004.  After  scrutinizing  the  records  relating  to  the  first

respondent,  the  appellant  university  registered  the  first

respondent for the examination with Roll  No.4723.  The first

respondent appeared for the first semester examination.  

2

3. Thereafter, the appellant university wrote a letter dated

20.12.2004 informing the college that first respondent’s basic

degree was M.A.(English) from Annamalai University through

Distance  Education,  which  was  not  recognized  by  it  and

therefore, his admission to LL.B. course should be cancelled.

The  first  respondent  submitted  a  detailed  representation

contending  that  his  admission was valid.  The  appellant  did

not agree and by letter dated 29.3.2005 directed the second

respondent  college  to  cancel  the  admission  of  the  first

respondent.  

4. Feeling  aggrieved,  the  first  respondent  filed  a  writ

petition  before  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana,

contending that he was eligible for admission as he possessed

a M.A. degree recognized as equivalent to M.A. degree of the

appellant-University  and  that  his  admission  could  not  be

cancelled. The High Court accepted the contention of the first

respondent and directed that his admission to LL.B. course be

3

restored forthwith. The High Court rejected the contention of

the appellant that a bachelor’s degree was a pre-condition for

admission to the LL.B course by holding that prescription of

M.A. was an alternative eligibility qualification for admission

to the course. These findings of the High Court are challenged

before us.  

5. The  academic  qualification  prescribed for  admission to

three  years  LL.B  professional  course  (vide  Handbook  of

Information)is as follows:

“Candidates who have passed bachelor’s Degree of Guru Nanak Dev University or any other equivalent examination recognized  as such by the University with not less than 45% marks; or Master’s Degree of Guru  Nanak  Dev  University  or  of  any  other University recognized as equivalent thereto.”    

6. The  appellant-University  submitted  that  a  Bachelor’s

degree is a must for admission, and the Master’s degree of the

appellant University (or the equivalent) was considered as an

eligible qualification for admission, only where the candidate

had not secured 45% marks in the Bachelor’s degree course.  

4

7. This argument of the appellant-University is contested by

the  first  respondent,  who appeared  in person.  According  to

him,  the  provision  relating  to  eligibility  used  the  word  “or”

between the two qualifications prescribed; and that indicated

that  they  were  alternatives  and  possessing  either  of  them

would  make  a  candidate  eligible.  He  submitted  that  as  he

possessed  M.A.  (English)  degree  from  the  Annamalai

University,  through  Distance  Education,  under  the  Open

University  System  (OUS),  he  fulfilled  the  alternative

requirement prescribed, that is, a master’s degree recognized

as  equivalent  to  the  master’s  degree  of  the  appellant-

University  and,  therefore,  he  is  eligible  to  get  admission  to

three years LL.B professional course.    

8. The  prescription  of  eligibility  criteria  is  very  clear.  It

requires a Bachelor’s degree with not less than 45 marks or a

Master’s  degree.  The  university’s  contention  that  the

candidate must have a Bachelor’s degree and only if his marks

5

are  less  than  45%  in  the  Bachelor’s  degree  course,  the

Master’s degree was to be considered,  would mean that the

word ‘or’ should be substituted by the words ‘in the event of

the  candidate  not  having  45  marks  in  Bachelor’s  degree’.

Reading such words into the provision is impermissible. The

word  ‘or’  is  disjunctive.  No  doubt,  in  some  exceptional

circumstances, the word ‘or’ has been read as conjunctive as

meaning ‘and’, where the context warranted it. But the word

‘or’  cannot  obviously  be  read  as  referring  to  a  conditional

alternative,  when such condition is not specified.  In view of

the  provision  relating  to  eligibility  being  unambiguous  and

using the word ‘or’, it is clear that a Master’s degree without a

Bachelor’s degree will satisfy the eligibility requirement.  

9. The  next  contention of  the  university  is  that a  person

without  having  a  Bachelor’s  degree  cannot  have  Master’s

degree.  They  contend  that  even  according  to  the  criteria

prescribed by Annamalai University for admission to MA, only

persons  who  have  BA or  equivalent  degree,  are  eligible  for

admission.  They  rely  on  the  following  eligibility  criterion

6

prescribed  by  Annamalai  University  for  admission  to  MA

degree course:  

“Candidates who have passed the B.A. or B.Sc. Or BOL  or  an  examination  of  any  other  university, accepted  by  the  Syndicate  as  equivalent  thereto, with English under Part I/II/III,  are eligible to join MA  Degree  course  in  English.  Preference  will  be given to those who have studied English under Part III.”

10. The Appellant University therefore contended that as the

first  respondent  did  not  possess  a  Bachelor’s  degree,  the

Master’s  degree  secured  by  him  is  irregular.  On  the  other

hand, first  respondent  pointed out  that the above  eligibility

criteria prescribed by Annamalai University was for admission

to regular M.A. degree course or M.A. Correspondence Course;

and that the eligibility criteria for admission to Master’s degree

programme under the Open University System (‘OUS’), in the

Annamalai University – distance education, was as follows :  

“Those who have completed the age of 21 as on 1st July  of  the  year  of  admission  and  have subsequently  passed  the  preparatory  course examination are eligible for admission.”

7

11. It  is  thus  clear  that  under  the  OUS  scheme,  if  a

candidate had passed the preparatory course examination for

admission to MA (English) literature, he need not have a basic

Bachelor’s degree. It  is true that normally a student cannot

enroll  for  a  Master’s  degree  course  unless  he  has  a  basic

Bachelor’s degree in the chosen subject. But some universities

may provide for enrolment to a Master’s degree course without

a basic Bachelor’s degree course, if certain requirements are

fulfilled.  Annamalai  University  has  in  fact  made  such  a

provision for enrolment to M.A. course by distance education

(OUS).   

12. The last contention of the appellant university is that the

MA (OUS) qualification possessed  by the first respondent  is

not  recognized  as  equivalent  to  the  Master’s  degree  of

appellant university. The appellant university has issued an

equivalency book containing the list of examinations of other

universities recognized by the appellant university. Clause (5)

of the said equivalency book reads thus :  

8

“That correspondence courses conducted by other Universities/Boards/Bodies  be  recognized  as equivalent  to  the  corresponding  (regular) examinations  of  this  University  provided  that regular examinations of those Universities/Boards/ Bodies  already  stand  recognized  as  equivalent  to the  corresponding  examinations  of  this  University (Academic Council, dated 16.1.1990).”

The said equivalency book also shows that MA examination of

Annamalai  University  is  recognized  as  equivalent  to  MA

examination  of  appellant  university.  But  that  may  not  be

sufficient.  The  appellant university in its additional  affidavit

has clarified that there are three types of courses, as under:  

(i) Regular Courses;

(ii) Correspondence  Courses:  (where  the  University directly sends the course material to the students. There  is  therefore  direct  contact  of  the  university with the students).  

(iii) Distance Education Courses: (where the University concerned  designates  a  franchisee/associate institutions  in  the  concerned  local  area  and  the course  material  is  then  given  by  the  said franchisee/associate  centre.  There  is  no  direct contact between students and the University).  

9

13. The  appellant  university  has  categorically  stated  that

while  regular  courses  and  correspondence  courses  in  MA

conducted  by  Annamalai  university  are  recognized  as

equivalent to the corresponding M.A. course of the appellant

university,  M.A.  (OUS)  course  through  distance  education

conducted by Annamalai university is not recognized by the

appellant university as equivalent to its M.A. course. The first

respondent  has  passed  his  M.A.  (OUS)  from  Annamalai

University  through  distance  education.  Equivalence  is  a

technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed.

Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to

equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly

published. The first respondent has not been able to produce

any  document  to  show  that  appellant  university  has

recognized  the  M.A.  English  (OUS)  of  Annamalai  University

through distance education as equivalent to M.A. of appellant

university. Thus it has to be held that first respondent does

not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for

admission to three year law course.  

10

14. The  first  respondent  made  a  faint  attempt  to  contend

that the distance education system includes ‘correspondence

courses’  and  therefore  recognition  of  M.A.  (correspondence

course) as equivalent to M.A. course of appellant University,

would  amount  to  recognition  of  M.A.  -  OUS  (distance

education)  course,  as  an  equivalent.  For  this  purpose,  he

relied  upon the definition of  “distance  education system” in

section  2(e)  of  Indira  Gandhi  National  Open  University  Act,

1985. But there is nothing to show that Annamalai University

has  treated  correspondence  course  and  OUS  (distance

education) course as the same. What is more important is that

the appellant university does not wish to treat correspondence

course  and Distance  Education  Course  as  being  the  same.

That is a matter of policy. Courts will not interfere with the

said policy relating to an academic matter.  

15. Therefore  the  appeal  of  the  University  deserves  to  be

allowed. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court holding

that  M.A.  English  degree  (OUS)   granted  by  Annamalai

11

University  through  distance  education  is  equivalent  to  MA

degree of appellant university, is set aside.  

16. However,  on  the  peculiar  facts  of  the  case,  the  first

respondent  is  entitled  to  relief.  The  first  respondent  was

admitted  through  a  Common Entrance  Test  process  during

2004-2005.  He  was  permitted  to  take  the  first  semester

examinations  by  the  university.  He  is  not  guilty  of  any

suppression or misrepresentation of  facts. Apparently,  there

was  some  confusion  in  the  appellant  university  itself  as  to

whether the distance education course attended by the first

respondent  was  the  same  as  correspondence  course  which

was  recognized.  The  first  respondent  was  informed  that  he

was  not  eligible,  only  after  he  took  the  first  semester

examination. He has however also been permitted to continue

the  course  and has completed  the  course  in 2007.  He  has

succeeded before the High Court. Now after four years, if it is

to be held that he is not entitled to admission, four years of

his career will  be irretrievably lost.  In  the circumstances,  it

will  be  unfair  and  unjust  to  deny  the  first  respondent  the

12

benefit  of  admission  which  was  initially  accepted  and

recognized  by  the  appellant  university.  This  Court  in  Shri

Krishan  vs.  The  Kurukshetra  University, (AIR  1976  SC

376), has observed that before issuing the admission card to a

student to appear in Part-I Law Examination, it was the duty

of  the  university  authorities  to  scrutinize  the  papers;  and

equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law

before  submitting  the  form  to  the  university  to  see  that  it

complied with all requirements; and if they did not take care

to scrutinize the papers, the candidature for the examinations

cannot  be  cancelled  subsequently  on  the  ground  of  non-

fulfilment  of  requirements.  In  Sanatan  Gauda  vs.

Berhampur University (AIR 1990 SC 1075), this Court held

where the candidate was admitted to the Law course by Law

College  and University also permitted him to appear for Pre-

Law and Intermediate Law examinations, the college and the

university were estopped from withholding his result on the

ground that he was ineligible to take admission in Law course.

Having regard to the above we are of the view that irrespective

of  the  fact  that M.A.  English (OUS)  degree  secured  by  first

13

respondent  from  Annamalai  University  through  distance

education,  may  not  be  recognized  as  an  equivalent  to  the

Master’s degree of the appellant university, his admission to

the  law  course  should  not  be  cancelled.  The  appellant

University  is  directed  to  treat  the  admission  as  regular

admission and permit the first respondent to appear for the

law  examination  and  if  he  has  already  appeared  for  the

examination,  declare  his  result.  The  appeal  is  disposed  of

accordingly.  

………………………. CJI

(K G Balakrishnan)

………………………..J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi October 21, 2008.

14