Distance Education; Sashi M. Vs. Kannur University and Academic Counsel [Kerala High Court, 04-01-2011]

Education – University – Equivalency Certificate for M. Sc Computer Science (Distance Education) (Lateral Entry) to the Degree obtained by him from Annamalai University – Requiring to produce a certificate from the Annamalai University to the effect that the contact programme and the examination of the course pursued by him was conducted within the territorial jurisdiction of the University, as per the rules of the Distance Education Council/UGC, along with the scheme and syllabus of the Lateral Entry Course, duly attested by the Registrar of the said University is valid.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Antony dominic, J.

WP (C). No. 38617 of 2010 (B)

Decided On: 04.01.2011

Sashi M. Vs. Kannur University and Academic Counsel

ForPetitioner: M.V. Amaresan, Adv.; For Respondents: M. Saseendran, S.C.

J U D G M E N T

1. Petitioner made an application to the Respondent University for an equivalency certificate for M. Sc Computer Science (Distance Education) (Lateral Entry) to the Degree obtained by him from Annamalai University. When he made the application, the University issued him Ext.P3 communication dated 01-12-2010, requiring the Petitioner to produce a certificate from the Annamalai University to the effect that the contact programme and the examination of the course pursued by him was conducted within the territorial jurisdiction of the University, as per the rules of the Distance Education Council/UGC, along with the scheme and syllabus of the Lateral Entry Course, duly attested by the Registrar of the said University. It is challenging Ext.P3, this writ petition is filed.

2. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that, in view of Ext.P4, which evidences that the UGC has granted recognition to the Annamalai University, demand made in Ext.P3 is illegal. I am not able to appreciate the said contention. Obviously, the Annamalai University could not have conducted a programme outside its territorial jurisdiction. If that be so, when an application is made for equivalency certificate, the Respondent University is perfectly within its power to ask for a certificate of the nature mentioned in Ext.P3 and on receipt of the said communication, it was for the Petitioner to have obtained the certificate and produce the same before the Respondent University to enable it to consider the Petitioner’s application for the issuance of the equivalency certificate. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P3.

The writ petition will, therefore, stand disposed of, directing that it will be open to the Petitioner to produce the certificate mentioned in Ext.P3 and that, on production of the same, the first Respondent University will consider the application made by the Petitioner for equivalency certificate and pass orders thereon without any further delay.

Comments