“  REPORTABLE”   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._5550_OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3569 of 2007)

Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. …. Appellants

Versus

Gis Jose  & Ors.                   …. Respondents

JUDGMENT

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. It  is  once  again,  a  judgment  has  come  from  the  High  Court  in

complete  derogation  of  the  observations  of  this  Court  against  the

compromising of the educational standards in the matter of admissions to a

particular  course  by  showing  unnecessary  sympathies.   The  Mahatma

Gandhi University has come up against the judgment of the Division Bench

of Kerala High Court whereby the Division Bench allowing the appeal of a

student, has directed the University to declare the withheld result  of the

student.  The direction though was, of course, without creating precedence,

as a special case.

3. It so happened that Petitioner, Gis Jose was admitted to the M.Sc.

Computer  Science course.   She had secured only 53.3% marks in  her

qualifying examination against the minimum requirement of cut-off marks,

which  had  been  fixed  by  the  university  as  55%.   Obviously  in  total

derogation of this fact, the student was admitted.  The error, when found by

the  University,  the  Controller  of  Examination  wrote  a  letter  dated

01.11.2004  to  the  Principal,  B.P.C.  College,  Piravom,  pointing  out  the

irregular admission to the M.Sc. Computer Science course.  It was pointed

out that the student’s application for Ist  and IInd semester Examinations,

held  in  April  and July,  2004 respectively,  were already  rejected  on the

ground that the student had scored only 53 % marks and her admission

was in violation of the Admission Rules framed by the University and still

the  Principal  had  allowed  the  student  to  continue  in  M.Sc.  Computer

Science to complete  the course and to  write her   examination.   It  was

pointed out that the University was viewing the matter very seriously and

the  Principal  was further  directed to  cancel  the  admission  given to  the

student and to report the matter within 10 days.  It is obvious from this letter

that the earlier applications dated 22.4.04 and 26.7.04 were also rejected

by the  University.   A  memo was ultimately  sent  on  25.2.2005 and  the

student  was  informed  that  the  University  had  rejected  her  request  for

continuing studies in M.Sc. Computer Science in the college.  This was on

the  basis  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Academic  Council  Meeting  dated

23.12.2004 where the Academic Council had refused to allow the student

to continue her studies and yet the student was allowed to continue with

2

the course in complete and total derogation of the directions given by the

Controller of Examinations.

4. The student came before the Kerala High Court  by way of a writ

petition which was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge of that Court, as

the student did not have the basic qualification for admission to the course

in  accordance  with  the  University  Regulations.   It  was  also  found  that

when the application for the Ist semester examination was submitted, the

same was not accepted by the University and the same was the fate of the

IInd semester examination  also yet the student was permitted to continue

her studies.  

5. An  appeal  was  filed  against  the  judgment  of  the  learned  Single

Judge and the Division Bench has allowed the appeal.  For that purpose,

the Division Bench relied on the earlier  Division Bench decision of  that

Court in W.A. No. 1040 of 2003.  In that, the Division Bench had taken the

view that since the student had completed the course and had taken the

examination, the results would have to be declared.  There the Court had

also taken the view that at that juncture, the student could not be singled

out.  The Division Bench “further in view of the inconsistency”  chose to

grant  relief  and  further  observed  that  this  did  not  adversely  affect  the

interest of others and that it was too late for  anybody to contend that by

treating her admission in  nullity, somebody would have gained anything.

3

The  Division  Bench  also  took  the  view  that  the  student  had  not

misrepresented regarding her marks and yet she was given the admission

as a normal student.  

6. It was further observed by the Division Bench that a strict approach

“disrobbing off the fruits of her effort could have had harsh results.”  The

Division Bench also agreed that such irregular admissions were likely to

pave  the  way  for  foul  play  in  the  hands  of  unscrupulous  college

management, and yet further proceeded to grant relief to the student, in

view of the fact that the student had taken the examinations of semesters

Ist to IVth and had undergone the full course. We are at complete loss to

understand as to how such course could have been taken.  In fact,  the

unscrupulous  college  management  had  obviously  given  an  irregular

admission  and  because  of  that  admission,  at  least  one  student  was

deprived of the admission to the M.Sc. Computer Course, so also it was a

complete discrimination between the respondent and other students, who

had also scored 53.3% marks and were not given admission on that count.

The  matters  do  not  stop  here.  The  Controller  of  the  Examination  had

subsequently rejected her  application for  the first  and second semester

examination which took place in April and July, 2004 and yet the college

proceeded to allow her to write her examination of those semesters and

also continued her admission.  It cannot be assumed that the students did

4

not have the idea of all these irregularities.  It was obvious that there was

an unholy hand shake of the student and the college authorities.   

7. It was contended by Shri B.V. Deepak, learned counsel appearing

for the student that the Vice Chancellor had allowed her to continue with

the  course.   However,  there  is  nothing  on  record  to  support  this  fact.

Further,  such  permission  was  clearly  incorrect  if  at  all  given.  In  the

subsequent  meeting  of  the  Academic  Council,  the  student  was  not

permitted to continue with the course.  All these factors were completely

ignored by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment .  Therefore, at

least after the Academic Council had rejected the student’s request, she

could not have been allowed to continue.  This did not happen and the

college  allowed  her  to  take  the  further  examinations  for  III  and  IV

semesters also.  We totally disapprove of all this.

8. Learned counsel for the student relied on a judgment of this Court in

the case of Selin Mary Mammen vs. Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors.

[Civil Appeal No.689 of 2004 delivered on 3.2.2004], a judgment delivered

by Lahoti, J.  Apart from the fact that the factual position is different in that

case, there were no timely notices given regarding the irregular admission

to the student as in the present case.

9. The  misplaced  sympathies  should  not  have  been  shown in  total

breach of the Rules.  In our opinion, that is precisely what has  happened.

5

Such a course was disapproved by this Court in Regional     Officer, CBSE   

vs.  Ku.  Sheena Peethambaran  and Others [(2003)  7  SCC 719].   In

paragraph 6 of the Judgment, this Court observed as follows :

“6.  This  Court  has  on  several  occasions  earlier deprecated  the  practice  of  permitting  the  students  to  pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders  passed in  the  petitions.   In  most  of  such cases,  it  is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had  been  declared,  the  matter  deserves  to  be  considered sympathetically.   It  results  in  very  awkward  and  difficult situations.   Rules  stare  straight  into  the  face  of  the  plea  of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions……….. ”.

10. In the present case, the college where the student was admitted, in

breach of all possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but

also to write the examination which was totally illegal.

11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the

Division Bench and restore the judgment of the Single Bench dismissing

the Writ Petition.

………………………..J.

(Ashok Bhan)

…………………………J. (V.S. Sirpurkar)

New Delhi;

September 8, 2008.  

6

Digital  Performa

Case  No.  : SLP (C) No. 3569 of 2007

Date of Decision : 08.09.2008

Cause Title :  Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr.

Vs.

Gis Jose & Ors.  

Coram :   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan     Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar      

Judgment delivered by :   Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

Nature of Judgment :  Reportable

7