Supreme Court of India
RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR ETC. ETCversusKARNATAKA UNIVERSITY & ANR.
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 101
- Decided
- 1 May 1986
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- P N BHAGWATI
Holding
The Karnataka University’s eligibility condition and its determination that the Rajasthan examinations were not equivalent are valid, but the appellants may continue their studies while the university is directed to act against the colleges that admitted them.
Summary
The Karnataka University prescribed, under emergency powers, that admission to its engineering courses required passing the two‑year Pre‑University Examination of the Bangalore board or an equivalent exam recognised by the university. The appellants, who had either passed the 11‑year Higher Secondary Examination of Rajasthan or the first‑year B.Sc. examinations of Rajasthan/Udaipur Universities, were admitted by private engineering colleges but later had their admissions cancelled as they did not satisfy the eligibility condition. The Supreme Court held that the university was entitled to decide what constituted an equivalent qualification and that the Rajasthan examinations could not be treated as equivalent to the Karnataka Pre‑University Examination. While affirming the university’s determination, the Court allowed the appellants to continue their studies, noting that the fault lay with the engineering colleges that admitted ineligible students for capitation fees. The Court also directed the university to take action against the erring colleges.
Issues considered
- The validity and binding nature of the eligibility condition prescribed by Karnataka University under Section 12(5) of the Karnataka Universities Act.
- Whether the Higher Secondary Examination of Rajasthan or the first‑year B.Sc. examinations of Rajasthan/Udaipur Universities are equivalent to the Pre‑University Examination of the Karnataka board.
- Whether the court can intervene in the university's academic determination of equivalence.
- Whether the appellants, though ineligible, may be permitted to continue their studies to avoid hardship.
Legislation cited
- Karnataka Universities Acts. 12(5)
Subjects
Admission eligibilityEquivalence of examinationsUniversity autonomyProfessional collegesCapitation feeHigher Secondary ExaminationPre‑University ExaminationKarnataka UniversityEngineering admission
Judgment
912
A. RAJENDRA. PRA.SA.D MA.THUR ETC. ETC.
v.
11\RNATAKA. UNIVERSITY & ANR.
MA.Y I, 1986
[P.N. BllA.CJ<A.TI, C.J. A.ND R.S. PA.THAI<, J.]
B
Professional Colleges - Admission to - Recognition of~
degree - University best fitted to decicle - Court not to
disturb decision taken by University.
The condition of eligibility laid down by the Karnataka
c University for admission to the first year of the Engineering /
Degree Course in the affiliated private colleges provides : ,
\
"Candidates shall have passed the two year'-
pre-university examination of the pre-university
education board, Bangalore or an examination held
D by any other Board or University recognised as
equivalent to it with English as one of the
languages and Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as
optional subjects with the necessary percentage of
marks laid down by the University at the time of
A
admission.
E
A. student who has passed B.Sc. Examination with
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and secured not >
less than 50% of the aggregate of Physics,
Chemistry and Mathematics, is also eligible for+ ~
admission. However, he cannot claim exemption of
F any sort."
The Higher Secondary Examination in the State o f t -
Rajasthan required only eleven years schooling. The State of
Rajasthan did not follow the pattern of lo+2 where SSLC
Examination is held after 10 years schooling followed bY study
G for a period of two years, whether in school or in college,
which is termed as intermediate course at some places and
Pre-University Course at others. However, so far as the State
of Karnataka is concerned, it followed the pattern of lo+2 and 'y
after 10 years schooling followed by SSLC Examination, it
provided for a two year Pre-University Course culminating in
H an examination held by the Pre-University Education Board.
R. P. MATHUR v. KARNA.TAKA UNIVERSITY 913
A.
The appellant in Civll Appeal No. 10610 of 1983 had
~ passed the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board
of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. The appellants in the other
appeals had also, after the Higher Secondary Examination,
passed the first year examination of the three year B.Sc.
Degree Course of the Universlty of Rajasthan/Udaipur. All B
these appellants were granted admission to the first year of
the Engineering Degree course in different colleges/insti-
J. tutions affiliated to the Karnataka University. Whlle they
\ were studying, the Karnataka University took the view that
since they had not passed the two year Pre-University Exami-
nation of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore and
neither the Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of c
Secondary Education, Rajasthan, nor the first year B.Sc.
\.,r Examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities passed
1
by them was equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of
~ the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore, they were not
eligible for admission and accordingly the Karnataka
University disapproved of their admissions and cancelled the D
same.
Aggrieved by the cancellation of their admission, the
appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court. A. Single
Judge of the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions
A holding (a) that the Vice-chancellor had laid down the E
condition of eligibility in exercise of his emergency powers
under s.12(5) of the Karnataka Universities Act and his action
was approved and affirmed by the Academic Council and the
Syndicate of the University; (b) that the B.Sc. Part I
Examination of the Universities of Rajasthan and Udaipur could
not be regarded as equivalent to the B.Sc. first year F
Examination of the Karnataka University and a fortiori it
could not be considered as equivalent to the--Pre-University
Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore
and in any event it was not recognised as such by the
Karnataka University; (c) that each University got the power
to prescribe the condition of eligibility for various courses G
in the colleges within its jurisdiction and the condition of
eligibility prescribed by the Karnataka University was
perfectly valid and since the Karnataka University had not
'i recognised the first year B.Sc. Examination of any other
university outside the State of Karanataka as equivalent to
the Pre-University Examination held by the Pre-University H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A
Education Board, Bangalore, the appellants did not satisfy the
condition of eligibility and were accordingly not eligible ~
for admision; and (d) that since the appellants were
ineligible for admission to the Engineering Degree Course of
the Karnataka University, any delay in the cancellation of
their admission could not convert ineligibility into eligi-
B bility and this was not a case of irregular admission where
less meritorious candidates were selected in preference to
more meritorious candidates but it was a case where the 1-
candidates who were not eligible at all for admission were
admitted. The Division Bench of the High Court also dismissed
the appeals of the appellants in limine.
c
Dismissing the appeals,
HEIJ>: 1. The appellants were not eligible for admission ~
to the Engineering Degree Course of the Karnatak.a University
and their admission was contrary to the Ordinance prescribing
D the condition of eligibility. However, the fault lies with the
Engineering Colleges which admitted the appellants because the
Principals of these Engineering Colleges 1111st have known that
the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the
sake of capitation fee, in some of the cases, they granted
admission to the appellants. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no reason why -the
... f
E
appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of
these Engineering Colleges. The appellants are, therefore
allowed to continue their studies in the respective
Engineering Colleges in which they were granted admission
notwithstanding the view taken by the Court in this judgment. + ~
F [926 B; D-F]
·~.
2.(i) The condition of eligibiltiy laid down by the
Karnatak.a University requires that the students see~ing
admission should have passed the two year Pre-University
Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore
G or an examination held by any other Board of University
recognised as equivalent to it. The examination held by any
other Board or University which has been passed by the
candidate 1111st be recognised by the Karnataka University as
equivalent to the two year Pre-University Examination of the )-'
Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. [923 G-H; 924 A]
H
R.P. MATHUR v. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY 915
A
-'"' 2.(ii) It ts for each University to decide the question
of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit
in judgment over the decision of the University because it is
not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The
University is best fitted to decide whether any examination
held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an B
examination held within the State having regard to the
courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction
~and the standard of examination. It ls an academic question in
which the court should not disturb the decision taken by the
University. (925 C-E]
;
2. (iii) The Higher Secondary Examination held by the C
\-.' Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan after only 11 years
f schooling could not be regarded as equivalent to the Pre-
~ University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board,
Bangalore which came as the culmination of a full 12 years
course of study. It is also difficult to understand how the
decision of the Karnataka University not to recognise the D
first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur
Universities as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination
of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore could be
regarded as arbitrary or fanciful. (925 B-D]
In the present case, the Karnataka University did not E
recognise the Higher Secondary Examination held by the
Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan as equivalent to the Pre-
University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board,
Bangalore. And rightly so because the Higher Secondary
• tExamination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan
followed only 11 years schooling while the Pre-University F
\ Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore
-~came at the end of 10t2 Course, that ls, 12 years study. The
Karnataka University also did not recognise the first year
B.Sc. Examination of the Universities of Rajasthan and Udaipur
as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-
Education Board Bangalore. In fact the Academic Council took
G
the view that first year B.Sc. Examination of any University
outside the State of Karnataka could not be recognised at
~equivalent to the first year B.Sc. examination of the
Karnataka University and it would therefore seem to follow a
fortiori that the first year B.Sc. examination of the
Rajasthan or Udaipur University was not regarded by the
H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A
Karnataka University as equivalent to the Pre-University ~
Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore.
(924 B-F]
The Court observed that the University of Karnataka
should take appropriate action against the erring Engineering
B Colleges because the managements of these Engineering colleges
have not only admitted students ineligible for admission but
thereby deprived an equal 1UJ1Dber of eligible students fromj..
getting admission to the Engineering Degree Course. (926 F-G]
CIVIL APPELi.ATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10610 of
c 1983 etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27 .10.1983 of
Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 1983.
Dalveer Bhandari for the Appellants.
D
S.S. Javali and B.P. Singh for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BllACJIATI, C.J, These appeals by special leave are A
E directed against an Order passed by the Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court summarily rejecting writ appeals
preferred by several students against a common judgment
delivered by Justice Rama Jois dismissing the writ petitions
filed by them challenging the cancellation of their admission
by the Karnataka University. The facts giving rise to th.,,.ei •
p appeals are few and may be briefly stated as follows.
R.P. Mathur, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 10610 of~
1983 passed Higher Secondary Examination conducte0 by the
Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan and applied for
admission to the first year of the Engineering Degree course
G in Shri Dharamsthala Manjunatheswara College of Engineering
and Technology for the academic year 1981-82. Shri
Dharmasthala Manjunatheswara College of Engineering and
Technology is a private Engineering College affiliated to the)-
Karnataka University and admission to the first year of the
Engineering Degree Course in this College was, therefore,
H governed by the Rules for Admission made by the Karnataka
R.P. MATHUR v. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY [BHAGWATI, C.J.) 917
A
) University. On 11th August, 1980, the Vice-Chancellor in
exercise of the emergency powers conferred upon hi.m by section
12(5) of the Karnataka Universities Act issued an Order
prescribing, inter alia, condition of eliglbi Uty for
admission to the first year of the Engineering Degree Course.
This Order made by the Vice-chancellor was approved by the B
Academic Council and the Syndicate and it governed admissions
to be made to the first year of the Engineering Degree course
_,.in the academic year 1981-82 and subsequent years. The
condition of eligibility provided by this Order was as
follows :
"Candidates shall have passed the two year pre- c
university examination of the pre-university
education board, Bangalore or an examination held
by any other Board or University recognised as
equivalent to it with English as one of the
languages and Physics, Chemistry and mathematics as
optional subjects with the necessary percentage of D
marks laid down by the University at the time of
admission.
A student who has passed B.Sc. Examination with
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and secured not
less than 50% of the aggregate of Physics, E
Chemistry and Mathematics, is also eligible for
admission. However, he cannot claim exemption of
any sort."
~ t Now,
the Higher Secondary Examination in the State of
Rajasthan required only 11 years schooling. The State of
F
Rajasthan did no follow the pattern of 10+2 where SSLC
. Examination is held after 10 years schooling followed by study
for a period of two years, whether in school or in college,
which is termed as Intermediate course at some places and Pre-
, University course at others. However, so far as the State of
Karnataka is concerned, it followed the pattern of 10+2 and
after 10 years' schooling followed by SSLC Examination, it G
provided for a two-year Pre-University course culminating in
'1
an examination held by the Pre-University Education Board.
Obviously, therefore, the Higher Secondary School Examination
after 11 years schooling in the State of Rajasthan could not
be regarded as equivalent to the examination held by the Pre-
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A University Education Board after lo+2 in the State of ~
Karnataka and this non-equivalence was not serl.ously disputed
on behalf of the appellant. R.P. Mathur, was clearly, in the
circumstances not eligible for admission to the Engineering
Degree Course. Even so, he was admitted by the Dharmasthala
Manjunatheswara College of Engineering and Technology for the
academic year 1981-82. He completed the first year and
B appeared in the examination held in July 1982 but he failed in
four subjects and he had, therefore, to take a supplementary~
examination in January 1983 when he cleared two more subjects
and the remaining two subjects were cleared by him in the
examination held in June 1983, He also simultaneously appeared
in the second year examination in June 1983 but again he
c failed to clear four subjects and he had to appear in the 'f/
supplementary examination in December 1983 when he passed in
the 2nd class. Whilst he was studying for the second year, his t
admission was disapproved by the Karnataka University in a
letter dated 7th April 1983 addressed by the Registrar to the
Principal of the Dharmasthala Manjunatheswara College of
D Engineering and Technology. This letter was in the following
term :
"The matter has been examined carefully. The two
candidates (that is, R. P. Mathur and one Abhay "
Kumar Jain) have passed the H.S.C. Examination of
E the H.E.F. Board and H.S.M. Board, Rajasthan which
is equivalent to 11 years schooling. As per our
eligibility requirements, a candidate Ill.1st have
passed two year pre-university examination of the
pre-University Examination Board, Bangalore or an -f
examination held by any other Board or university
F recognised as equivalent to it. As per our
eligibility requirement, H.s.c. examination of 11 ~
years duration is not considered as equivalent to
our two years pre-university examination as the
pattern of education in our State is 10 year.s plus
two years, while it is 11 years schooling in
G Rajasthan State. Therefore, the two candidates (1)
Sri R.P. Mathur and (2) Sri Abhay Kumar Jain are
not eligible for admission to the first year P.E. )'-
Course during the year 1981-82 as per our
eligibility rules. Candidates may be informed
accordingly."
H
R.P. MATHUR v. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY [BHAGWATI, C.J.] 919
,,.( This decision of the Karnataka Universty was com111micated to A
R.P. Mathur by the Principal of the College. He, thereupon
filed Writ Petition No. 7744 of 1983 in the High Court of
Karnataka challenging the cancellation of his admlssion by the
Karnataka University.
It appears that "1hen the writ petition was admitted by a B
learned Single Judge of the High Court, an interim Order was
made allowing R.P. Mathur to continue his studies in Shri
1 Dharmasthala Manjunatheswara College of Engineering and
Technology and it was as a result of this interim Order that
R.P. Mathur could appear in the supplementary examination for
the first year held in June 1983 and the regular examination
for the second year held in June 1983. The writ petition was c
r directed to be heard at an early date and it came up for
~hearing before Justice Rama Jois sitting as a Single Judge.
There were also six other students, namely (1) Vijay
Kumar Sharma (2) Nilesh Kumar Malasia (3) Rakesh Jain (4)
Rajesh Kumar Mehta (5) Vined Kumar Jain, and (6) T.M. Mathur D
appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 10812 and 10815 to 10819 of
1983 who were admitted to the Engineering Degree Course for
the academic year 1982-83 and whose admissions were cancelled
A~l=:~a~:a~=~aJ~~~~e~~~~~ ~~~ !::~: :~=~~o~i~:!r~~~
passed the lfigher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board E
of Secondary Education, Rajasthan and thereafter Vijay Kumar
Sharma cleared the first year examination of the three-year
Degree course in B.Sc. of the University of Rajasthan with
t t Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as optional subjects and
the other four, viz., Nilesh Kumar Malasia, Rakesh Jain,
Rajesh Kumar Mehta and Vined Kumar Jain, passed the first year F
examination of the three year B.Sc. Degree course of Udaipur
University with the same three subjects, viz., Physics,
Chemistry and Mathematics, as optional subjects. These five
, students were admitted to the Engineering Degree course in the
S. T.C. Institute of Technology, Ranibennur for the academic
year 1982-83. The Karnataka University took the view that G
since they had not passed the two-year Pre-University
examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore
"! and neither the Higher Secondary Examinat in of the Board of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan nor the first year B.Sc.
examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities passed
H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A by them was equivalent to the Pre-University examination of .
the ,Pre- University Education Board, Bangalore, they were not ~
eligible for admission and accordingly the Karnataka
University by its letter dated 5th March, 1983 disapproved of
their admission leading to the cancellation of the admission.
The course of events followed the same pattern so far as T.M.
Mathur was concerned. He also passed the Higher Secondary
B Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education,
Rajasthan and thereafter cleared the first year examination of~
the three year B.Sc. Degree course of the University of
Udaipur and on the basis of these qualifications, he was
admitted to the Engineering Degree course by Anjuman Engineer-
ing College, Bhatkal for the academic year 1982-83. ln his
c case too, the Karnataka University disapproved of his - /
admission on the ground that he was not eligible for admission
to the Engineering Degree course and in consequence, his t
admission was cancelled. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Nilesh Kumar
Malasia, Rakesh Jain, Raiesh Kumar Mehta, Vinod Kumar Jain and
T.M. Mathur aggrieved by the cancellation of their admission,
D filed writ petitions Nos. 7999/83 to 8003/83 and 9533/83 in
the High Court of Karnataka. It appears that in the case of
these students also, an interim order was made by the High
Court while admitting the writ petitions, allowing them to
continue their studies and complete their Engineering course.
A
The record shows that from out of these students, only two,
E namely, Nilesh Kumar Malasia and T.M. Mathur passed the first
year examination of the Engineering Degree course while the
rest failed. lt is not known-at least it does not appear from
the record-as to whether those who failed appeared again in
the first year examination and cleared it. The writ petition-t •
filed by these students were placed for hearing along with
F Writ Petition No. 7744 of 1983 filed by R.P. Mathur. We shall
for the sake of convenience refer to the petitioners in all~
these writ petitions as the appellants.
Three contentions in the main were urged on behalf of the
appellants before the learned single Judge. The first
G contention was that the condition of eligibility for admission
to the Engineering Degree Course had not been validly laid-
down by the Karnataka University and hence the admission of
the appellants could not be cancelled on the ground that they r'
did not satisfy the condition of eligibility and were
accordingly not entitled to be admitted to the Engineering
H
R.P. MATHUR v. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY [BHAa.!ATI, C.J.] 921
A
Degree Course. This contention was negatived by the learned
A Judge who pointed out that the Vice-chancellor had laid down
the condition of eligibility in exercise of his emergency
powers under Section 12(5) of the Karnataka Universities Act
and his action was approved and confirmed by the Academic
Council and the Syndicate of the University. The second B
contention urged on behalf of the appellants was that at least
so far as those appellants were concerned who had passed the
B.Sc. first year examination of the University of Rajasthan or
4 Udaipur and were admitted to the Engineering Degree Course on
the 'ltrength of this qualification, they were eligible for
admission even according to the condition of eligibility
prescribed by the Karnataka University since the B.Sc. first C
year examination of the Universities of Rajasthan and Udaipur
y was equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-
University Education Board, Bangalore. But in answer to this
i contention it was pointed out on behalf of the respondents
that the Academic Council of Karnataka University had accepted
the following recommendation of the Committee set up by it for D
determining equivalence
"Resolved to recommend to the Academic Council that
no part examinations of other Universities outside
the State of Karnataka be recognised as equivalent
to the corresponding course of this University E
except the Syndicate Resolution No. 39 of 26.5.79."
The Academic Council had thus declined to recognise any part
examination of another University outside the State of
Karnataka as equivalent to the corresponding examination of
1 the Karnataka University and the B.Sc. Part-I Examination of F
the Universities of Rajas than and Udaipur could not,
therefore, be regarded as equivalent to the B.Sc. firs~ year
examination of the Karnataka University and a fortiori it
;ould not be conside~ed as equivalent to th<! Pre-University
Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore
, and in any event it was not recognised as such by the G
Karnataka University. The appellants when faced with this
argument were constrained to adopt an extreme position that
the condition of eligibility prescribed by the Karnataka
~ University was arbitrary and hence liable to be struck down as
invalid. This con~ention was also rejected by the learned Judge
who pointed out that each University has got the power to H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.
A
prescri)Je conditions of eligibility for admission to various
courses in the colleges within its jurisdiction and the J>..
condition of eligibility prescribed by the Karnataka
University was perfectly valid and since the Karnataka
University had not recognised the first year B.Sc. examination
of any other University outside the State of Karnataka as
equivalent to the Pre-University Examination held by the
B
Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore, the appellants did
not satisfy the condition of eligibility and were accordingly
not eligible for admission. The appellants also relied on the~
plea of equitable estoppel against the Karnataka University
but that plea was also negatived by the learned Judge since
admittedly no representation was made by the Karnataka
c University on the basis of which the appellants could be said I
to have altered their position. The learned Judge pointed out 1'
that the Karnataka University did not make any representation ,
or hold out at any stage that passing of the Higher Secondary +
Examination of the State of Rajasthan or of the first year
B.Sc. examination of the University of Rajasthan or Udaipur
D
would make the appellants eligible for admission to the
Engineering Degree Course of the Karnataka University. The
appellants lastly submitted that even if they were ineligible
for admission, the admission granted to them should not be
cancelled because they had been pursuing the course of study
in the Engineering Degree Course for over a year and their ,i.
E
admission should not be disturbed as otherwise it would work
great hardship on them. This submission of the appellants was
also rejected by the learned Judge who took the view that
since the appellants were ineligible for admission to the
Engineering Degree Course of the Karnataka University, any t
delay in the cancellation of their admission could not convert
ineligibility into eligibility and this was not a case of
irregular admission where less meritorious candidates were
selected in preference to more meritorious candidates but it
was a case where candidates who were not eligible at all for
admission were admitted. The learned Judge accordingly upheld
the cancellation of the admission of the appellants and
,'
dismissed the writ petitions. The appellants thereupon filed
appeals against the decision of the learned Judge before a
Division Bench of the High Court but that Division Bench
agreeing with the view taken by the learned Judge dismissed
the appeals in limine. The appellants being.aggrieved by the
order of the lllvision Bench dismissing their appeals preferred
!
R,P, MATHUR v. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY (BHAGJATI, C,J,] 923
A
the present appeals with special leave obtained from this
_), Court.
The appellants did not contend before us that the
condition of eligibility laid down by the Karnataka University
was not valid and binding. Indeed they could not possibly B
raised this contention because the condition of eligibility
was laid down by the Vice-chancellor in exercise of his
emergency powers under Section 12(5) of the Karnataka
~ Universities Act and his action had been confirmed both by the
Academic Council and the Syndicate. The appellants also did
not rely on the plea of equitable estoppel since it was
obvious that the Karnataka University had not made any
representation to the appellants that passing of Higher
c
"'( Secondary Examination in the State of Rajasthan or of Ist year
i. B.Sc. examination of the University of Rajasthan or Udaipur
t would be sufficient to make them eligible for admission to the
' Engineering Degree Course of the Karnataka University and it
was not possible to say that the appellants had altered that
D
position relying on any such represent.ation. The only
contention urged on behalf of the appellants was that the
Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of Secondary
Education, Rajasthan or in any event first year B.Sc.
examination of a University of Rajasthan or Udaipur should be
~. . regarded as equivalent to the Per-University Examination of
E
Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore and the appellants
who had passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the
Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan and in any event such of
/'
, the appellants who had passed the first year B.Sc. examination
•_, i of the Universities of Rajasthan and Udaipur satisfied the
condition of eligibility prescribed by the Karnataka
F
University and were therefore eligible for admission to the
, Engineering Degree Course of the Karnataka University. This
---t· contention is in our opinion wholly unsustainable and cannot
' be accepted. In the first place it may be noted that what the
condition of eligibility laid down by the Karnataka University
requires is that the students seeking admission should have
G
passed the two year Pre-University Examination of the
Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore or an examination
held by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent
i to it. The examination held by any other Board or University
which has been passed by the candidate I0.1st be recognised by
the Karnataka University as equivalent to the two year
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A
Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University F.ducation
Board, Bangalore. The equivalence has to be decided by the )._
Karnataka University and it is not a matter of objective
assessment or evaluation by the Court. It is for each
University to decide the question of equivalence of an
examination held by any other Board or University with the
B examination which primarily constitutes the basis of
eligibility. Here in the present case the Karnataka University
did not recognise the Higher Secondary Examination held by the
Secondary F.ducation Board, Rajasthan as equivalent to the ~
Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education
Board, Bangalore. And rightly so because the Higher Secondary
c Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan
followed only 11 years schooling while the Pre-University
Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore y
came at the end of 10+2 Course that is 12 years study. The
Karnataka University also did not recognise the first year+
B.Sc. examination of the Universities of Rajasthan and Udaipur
D as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the
Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. In fact the
academic Council took the view that first year B.Sc.
examination of any University outside the State of Karnataka
could not be recognised as equivalent to the first: year B.Sc.
examination of the Karnataka University and it would therefore
E seem to follow a fortiori that the first year B.Sc. A
examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University was not
regarded by the Karnataka University as equivalent to the
Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education
Board, Bangalore. It is also evident from the second part of
the condition of eligibility prescribed by the Karnataka ,
F University that if a student did not fall in the first part he T •-
could be eligible under the second part only if he had passed
B.Sc. examination with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and
that mere passing of first year B.Sc. examination would not be~
enough. There can therefore be no doubt that the appellants '
were not eligible for admission to the Engineering Degree
G Course of the Karnataka University and their admission was
contrary to the Ordinance prescribing the condition of
eligibility.
But it was then contended on behalf of the appellants as J.--
a last alternative that the action of the Karnataka University
H in not recognising the Higher Secondary Examination held by
R.P. MATHUR v. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY [BHA<li'ATI, C,J,] 925
A
the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan and in any event the
.,J, first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajsthan and Udaipur
Universities as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination
of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore was abritrary
and unreasonable. We cannot accede to this contention. It is
difficult to appreciate how the Higher Secondary Examination
B
held by the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan after only 11
years schooling could be regarded as equivalent to the Pre-
University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board,
-1 Bangalore which came as the culmination of a full 12 years
course of study. So also it is difficult to understand how the
decision of the Karnataka University not to recognise the
first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur
Universities as eqivalent to the Pre-University Examination
c
'Y of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore could be
\ regarded as arbitrary or fanciful. It is for each University
T to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be
right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of
the University because it is not a matter on which the Court
D
possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to
decide whether any examination held by a University outside
the State is equivalent to an examination held within the
State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality
of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It
,.J., is an academic question in which the Court should not disturb
the decision taken by the University. Here we find that no E
material has been placed before the Court on the basis of
which the Court could say that the decision of the Karnataka
University not to recognise the Higher Secondary Examination
•:-1 + of the State of Rajasthan or the first year B.Sc. examination
of the Universities of Rajasthan and Udaipur as equivalent
to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University F
,-t,. Education Board, Bangalore was arbitrary or not based on
reasons. We must therefore reject this contention urged on
behalf of the appellants.
We accordingly endorse the view taken by the learned
Judge and affirmed by the Di 'ision Bench of the High Court. G
But the question still remains whether we should allow the
""' appellants to continue their studies in the respective
1 Engineering Colleges in which they were admitted. It was
strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that
un1er the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A of this Court they have been pursuing their course of study ln
the respective Engineering Colleges and their admissions
should not now be disturbed because if they are not thrown out ~
after a period of almost four years since their admission
their whole future will be blighted. Now it is true that the
appellants were not eligible for admission to the Engineering
Degree Course and they had no legitimate claim to such admis-
B
sion. But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful
admission llllSt lie more upon the Engineering Colleges which
granted admission then upon the appellants. It is quite
possible that the appellants did not know that neither the ~
Higher Secondary Education of the Secondary Education Board,
Rajasthan nor the first year B.Sc. Examination of the
c Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognised as equi-
valent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University~./
Education Board, Bangalore. The appellants being young i
students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they r'
had passed the first year B.Sc. Examination of the Rajasthan
or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary
D
Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they
were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the Engineer-
ing Colleges which admitted the appellants because the 0
Principals of these Engineering Colleges llllSt have known that
the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for
the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted
.I.
E admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants
-
should suffer for the sins of the managements of these
Engineering Colleges. We would therefore, notwith!ltanding the
view taken by us in this Judgment allow the appellants to
continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges
in which they were granted admission. But we do feel that -t .-~
F
against the erring Engineering Colleges the Karnataka Univer-
sity should take appropriate action because the managements of
these Engineering Colleges have not only admitted students in ~.
eligible for admission but thereby deprived an equal number of I ·-
eligible students from getting admission to the Engineering
Degree Course. We also endorse the directions given by the
learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his Judgment
G
with a view to preventing admission of ineligible students.
We accordingly dismiss these appeals but in the
circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs· 'r'
H Appeals dismissed.
M. L.A..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Admission eligibility"Sign in to search