- (1.) Written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record.
(2.) The petitioner who had Bachelor of Science degree in a distance education mode with Annamalai University came by admission to M.A. (English) course with the 2nd respondent-College. The college gave admission to her on certain conditions which included that she would submit her DMC for 10+2 and migration certificate. She had also given an undertaking that she understood that her admission was provisional and the admission would be subject to fulfilling conditions prescribed by the Guru Nanak Dev University. She took the examination in 2013 in Part-I English but she was served with a letter from the University on 4.3.2014 that is impugned that she was ineligible to be admitted into the course since the University does not recognize distance education mode or a degree of university whose equivalence has not been obtained from the 1st respondent- University. Admittedly, the petitioner has studied in distance education mode and she has also not secured the equivalence certificate.
(3.) The petitioner has a contention to make that the eligibility criteria set down by the College at the time of seeking admission did not set out anywhere that the graduate course in distance education would not be permitted. She had also not been informed that equivalence certificate must be obtained. The learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University Versus Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another, 2008 11 JT 543that addresses the plight of a student who had done his graduate course through distance education mode from Annamalai University and who had been granted admission to LLB with Guru Nanak Dev University, which after the student went through the entire course, was stated to be invalid since the MA degree course obtained from the Annamalai University was not recognized. The Supreme Court held that having regard to the peculiar facts of the case that a student who had given his entrance test in 2004-2005 and who had completed the course in 2007 and also succeeded before the High Court shall not lose the benefit of the degree which he had obtained. The very same judgment states in the earlier paragraph 14 that if the University did not wish to treat the correspondence course and the distance education course as being the same, it was a matter of policy and the court will not interfere with the said policy relating to an academic matter. The Supreme Court was actually allowing the appeal filed by the University in the decision cited by the counsel. If they were making an exception, it was an exception in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution and that was not the law stated by the Supreme Court. The law stated is what is found in paragraph 14 where it has declared that a non-recognition of a distance education mode was a matter of policy which the court could not interfere.;