Holding

The eligibility clause is disjunctive, so a Master's degree alone satisfies the requirement, but the specific OUS M.A. was not recognised as equivalent; however, because the student had been admitted, allowed to sit exams and completed the course without misrepresentation, his admission could not be cancelled.

Summary

Guru Nanak Dev University admitted Sanjay Kumar Katwal to its three‑year LLB professional programme after he cleared a common entrance test, relying on his M.A. (English) obtained from Annamalai University through the Open University System (distance education). The University later cancelled his admission, contending that the degree was not recognised as equivalent to its own Master's degree and that a Bachelor’s degree was a prerequisite. The High Court restored the admission, prompting the University to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the eligibility clause in the university handbook uses the word "or" disjunctively, so a Master's degree alone satisfies the requirement, but the specific OUS M.A. was not deemed equivalent; nevertheless, because the respondent had been admitted, allowed to sit for examinations, completed the course, and made no misrepresentation, his admission could not be cancelled. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order on equivalence but directed the university to treat the respondent’s admission as regular and to recognise his examination results.

Issues considered

Whether the eligibility provision for admission to the LLB programme, which states "Bachelor's degree with not less than 45% marks or Master's degree", permits admission on the basis of a Master's degree alone without a Bachelor's degree.
Whether an M.A. obtained through the Open University System (distance education) from Annamalai University is equivalent to the Master's degree recognised by Guru Nanak Dev University.
Whether the university may cancel an admission after the student has been permitted to appear for examinations and has completed the course, absent any misrepresentation.
Whether courts may interfere with academic policy decisions concerning equivalence of qualifications.

Legislation cited

Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985s. 2(e)

Subjects

admissioneligibilityequivalencedistance educationopen universityLLB professional courseacademic policycancellation of admission

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 961

GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY A
v
SANJAY KUMAR KATWAL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2252 of 2006)
OCTOBER 21, 2008
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN,
-t' J .]

Education -Admission to LLB. (Professional) Course -
Cancellation of admission by University, after permission c
granted to the candidate for appearing in examination - On
the ground that eligibility qualification i.e. Master's degree
under Open University System not recognized - Held: Uni-
versity rightly directed cancellation of admission as eligibility
qualification of the candidate was ndt recognized by the Uni- D
versify - However, in view of the facts that the candidate took
.. admission without suppression or mis-representation of facts,
and was permitted to appear in the examination and has com-
pleted the course, his admission not to be cancelled.
Education- Equivalence in educa_tional degrees - Held: F
Is a technical academic and policy matter, not to be interfered
with, by Courts - However, equivalence cannot be implied or
assumed - Decision of an academic body of University re/at-
, ing to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution,
duly published - Policy Decision. F
Respondent No. 1 was declared succe~sful in Com-
mon Entran·ce Test for apmission to three y·ears LLB.
(Professional) Course, conducted by appellant~Univer
sity. He was admitted in the respondent-college. The Uni-
versity also permitted him to appear in the first seme_ster G
-'i ., · examination after scrutinizing his records. Thereafter, the-
University asked the responden-t-College to cancel the
admission of respondent No. 1, on the ground that his
basic degree for admission to the LL~B. Course i.e. M.A.
001 H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]14 S.C.R.

A (English) from Annamalai University through Distance
Education was not recognized by it. Respondent No. 1
challenged the same by filing a writ petition. The High
· Court allowed_ the petition, directing the University to re-
store the admission of respondent No. 1.
B In the instant appeal, the University contended that
Master's degree was considered as an eligible qµalifica-
tion for admission only where the candidate had not se-
cured 45% marks in the Bachelor's degree course; and
that Master's degree under Open University System (OLIS)
c was not recognized as equivalent to the Master's degree
·of the appellant-University.
Dis_posing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of the provisiop relating to eligibil-
O ity b~ing unanibiguous, it is clear th* a Master's degree
without a Bachelor's degree will satisfy the· eligibility re-
quirement. The prescription of eligibility Griteria as per the ......
Handbook of Information is very clear. It requires a
Ba(l:helor's degree with not less than 45 marks or a
Master's ·degree. The University's contention that the can-
E didate must have a Bachelor's degree and only if his
marks are less than .45%. in the Ba'chelor's degree course_;
the. Master's deeree 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
~ F Bachelor~s degree'. Reading such words· into the provi-
sion i1. irhpermissible: The ~ord 'or' is di~junctive. No •.
doubt, m some exceptional circumstances, the 'wor:d 'or'
has 'been' read as conjunctive as meaning 'and.~ where
the context warranted it. But the word 'or' carinot obvi-
ously· be r:ead as referring to a conditional alternative,
when 'such conditio~ri is not specified. [Para 8] (966-F, G,
H; .967•A) f-
1.2 Under the Open University System (OUS), if a can-
didate had passed 'th.e preparatory course examination
. ·H . for admission to MA (English), he need not have a basic
'
.
GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY v. SANJAY 963
KUMAR KATWAL & ANR.
~
Bachelor's degree. It is true that normally a student can- A
not 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 enrplment to a Master's de-
gree course without a basic Bachelor's degree course, if
certain requirements are fulfilled. Annamalai University B
has, in fact, made such a provision for enrolment to M.A.
~- course by Distance E;ducation (OUS). [Para 11] (967-H;
968-A, B)
2.1 Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It
cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the aca- c
demic body of the university relating to equivalence
should be by a specific order or resolution, duly pub-
lished. Respondent No. 1 has not been able to produce
any document to show that appellant university has rec-.
o~nized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamalai University
D
-f thrc;>ugh distance education as equivalent to M.A.. of ap-
.,.. pellant University. Thus, respondent no. 1 does not fulfil
the eligibility ·criterion of the appellant university for ad-
, mission to three years law course.· There is nothing to
show that Annamalai University has treated correspon-
dence course and OUS (distance education) course as E
the same. Moreover, the appellant-University does not
wish .fo treat correspondence course and Distance Edu-
. cation Course as being the same. That is ·a matter of
policy. Courts ~ill not interfere with the said policy relat-
~.4 ing to an academic matter. Paras 13, 14] (969-C; 0, F, G, H) F
l /
2.2 However, on the peculiar facts of the case that
respondent no. 1 was admitted through a Common En-
trance 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 G
-; of facts, his admission to the law course should not be
cancell~d. Apparently, there was some confusion in the
appellant-University itself as to whether the distance edu-
cation course attended by respondent no.1 was the same
as correspondence course which was recognized. Re-
H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A spondent no.1 was informed that he was not eligible, only
after he took the first semester examination. He has how-
ever also been permitted to continue the course and has
completed the course in 2007. [Para 16] (970-B, C, D)
Shri Krishan vs: The Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976
8 SC 376 and Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University AIR
1990 SC 1075 - relied on.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
AIR 1976 SC 376 Relied on. Para 16
c
AIR 1990 SC 1075 IRelied on. . Para 16
I '
I .
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICJION: Civil Appeal No. 2252
of 2006
D From the final Judgment and Order dated 5. 7.2005 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.
5692 of 2005 ·

Man9j Swarup for the Appellant.
Sanjay Kumar Katwal-Respondent-ln~Person.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
KG.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI : 1. This appeal, by special
leave, has been filed by the appellant-Guru Nanak Dev Univer-
. sity against the judgment dated 5.7.2005 of a Division Bench J...,,•
F of the High Court of Punjab & Haryaria, whereby the writ peti-
tion 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. ~·
G :--2. The Government of Punjab authorized Punjab Univer-
sity to conduct a Common Entrance Test for selection of stu- - 1-
dents for admission to three year LL.B. (Professional) course
for the session commencing fr9m 2004-2005, for the various
colleges affiliated to or run by the said University and the appel-
H lant university. The first respondent appeared for the entr~nce
GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY v. SANJAY 965
KUMAR
\
KATWAL &ANR. [K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI]
~
test held on 8. 7.2004 and was declared successful. He attended A
the counselling and was selected and was admitted to St. Sol-
dier 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 sem~ter were held in December, 2004. B
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 examinati6n.
3. Thereafter, the appellant university wrote a letter dated c
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 there-
fore, his admission to LL.B. course should be cancelled. The
first respondent supmitted a detailed representation contend- D
-+
ing 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 peti-
tion before the High Court of. Punjab & Haryana, contending E
that he was eligible for admission as he possessed a M.A. de-
gree 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 restored forth- F
with. The High Court rejected the· contention of the appellant
that a bachelor's degree was a pre-condition for admission to
the LLB course by holding that prescription of M.A. was an
alternative eligibility qualification for admission to the course.
of
These findings the High Court are challenged before us. G
-\
5. The academic qualification prescribed for admission
to three year~ LL.B professional course (vide Handbook of
lnformation)is as follows:
"Candidates who have passed bachelor's Degree of Guru H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) ·14 S.C.R.

., ~
A 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."
B 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 equivaler)t) was considered as an
eligible qualification for admission, only where the candidate
had not s.ecured 45% marks in the Bachelor's degree course.
c
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" be-
tween the two qualifications pr~scribed; and that indicated that
they were ualternatives and possessing either of them would
D ~
make a candidate eligible. He submitted tl)atas 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 de-
E gree of the appellant-University and, therefore, he is eligible to
get admission to three years LL.B professional course. .
8. The .prescription of eligibinty criteria is very clear. It re-
quires a Bachelor's degree with not less than 45 m·arks or a
}
F Master's degree. The university's co_ntention that the candidate •
rnust have a'Ba-chelor's degr~e and orift if his marks are less
than 45% in the Bachelor's. degree course, the Master's de-.
gree 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
G
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 re-
ferring to a co.nditional alternative, when such condition is n.ot
H
GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY v. SANJAY 967
KUMAR KATWAL &ANR. [K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI]

specified. In view ofthe provision relating to eligibility being A
.... 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 de- B
gree. 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 prescribed by Annamalai
University for admission to MA degree course: c
"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
1/11/111, are eligible to join MA Degree course in English.
D
Preference will be given to those who have studied English
..;
under Part Ill."
..... 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, E
first respondent pointed out that the above eligibility criteria pre-
scribed 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 . F
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." G
11. It is thus clear that under the OUS scheme, if a candi-
:; date had passed the preparatory course examination for ad-
mission to f\{lA (English) literature, he need not have a basic
Bachelor's degree. It is true that normally a student cannot en-
H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R1.

roll for a Master's degree course unless he has a basic
A
Bachelor's degree in the chosen subject. But some uriiversi- •
ties may provide for enrolment to a Master's degree course
without a basic Bachelor's degree course, if certain require-
ments are fulfilled. Annamalai University has in fact made such
B 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 ap-
c pellant university. The appellant university has issued an equiva-
!ency book containing the list of examinations of other universi-
ties recognized by the appellant university. Clause (5) of the
said equivalency book reads thus :
"That correspondence courses conducted by other
D
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 cor_responding examinations of this
, E University (Academic Council, dated 16.1.1990)."
The said equivalency book also shows that MA examina-
tion of Annamalai University is recognized as equivalent to MA ...
examination of appellant university. But tha·t may not be suffi-
F cient. The appellant university in its additional affidavit has clari-
tied that there are three types of courses, as under: f.
...
' (i) Regular Courses;
(ii) Correspondence Courses: (where the University-
directly sends the course material to the students.
G
There is therefore direct contact of the university with
the students). r
(iii) Distance Education Courses: (where the University
concerned designates a franchisee/associate
H institutions in the concerned local area and the course
GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY v. SANJAY 969
KUMAR KATWAL & ANR. [K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI]

material is then given by the said franchisee/ A
• associate centre. There is no direct contact between
students and the University).
13. The appellant university has categorically stated that
_. while regular courses and correspondence courses in MA con-
ducted by Annamalai university are recognized as equivalent B
·to the corresponding M.A. course of the appellant university,
M.A. (OUS) course through distance education conducted by
. .r Annamalai university is not recognized by the appellant univer-
sity as equivalent to its M.A. course. The first respondent has
passed his M.A. (OUS) from Annamalai University through dis'- c
tance education. Equivalence is a t~chnica1 academic matte~.
It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic
body of the university relating to equivalence1 should be by a
specific order or ·resolution, duly published. The first respon"
dent has not been able to produce any document to show that 0
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. E
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 educa- F
.\ . tion) course, as an equivalent. For this purpose, b.e relied upon
,, the definition of "distance education system" in section 2(e) of
Indira Gandhi National Op·en University Act, 1985. But there is
nothing to show that Annamalai University has treated corre-
spondence course and O_US (distance education) course as G
the same. What is more important is that the appellant univer-
-~
sity does not wish to treat correspondence cours·e 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 aca-
demic matter. H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A 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 Univer-
sity through distance education is equivalent to MA degree of
appellant university, is set aside.
B 16. However, on the peculiar facts of the case, the first
respondent is entitled to relief. The first respondent was admit-
.ted through a Common Entrance Test process during 2004-
~-·
2005. He was permitted to take the first semester examina-
tions by the university. He is not guilty of any suppression or
C misrepresentation of facts. Apparently, there was some confu-
sion in the appellant university itself as to whether the distance
education course attended by the first respondent was the same
as correspondence course ~hich was recognized. The first re-
spondent was informed that he was not eligible, only after he
D 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 circum-
E stances, it will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent
the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and rec-
ognized by the appellant university. This Court in Shri Krishan
vs. The Kurukshetra University, (AIR 1976 SC 376), has ob-
served that before issuing the admission card to a student to
F appear in Part-I Law Examination, it was the duty of the univer-
sity 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 require-
ments; and if they did not take care to scrutinize the papers, the
G candidature for the examinations cannot be cancelled subse-
quently on the ground of non-fulfilment of requirements. In
Sana tan Gaud a vs. Berhampur University (Al R 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
H
\I ..

GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY v. SANJAY 971
KUMAR KATWAL & ANR. [K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI]

college and the university were estopped from withholding his A
~ result on the ground that he was ineligible to take admission in
Law course. Having regard to the above we are of the view tha~
irrespective of the fact that M.A. English (OUS) degree secured
by first respondent from Annamalai University through distance
education, may not be recognized as an equivalent to the B
Master's degree of the appellant university, his admission to
the law course should not be cancelled. The appellant Univer-,
-r' sity 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' C
his result. The appeal is disRosed of accordingly.
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.,