TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw College, Jalandhar, affiliated to the Appellant. 2. The Government of Punjab authorized Punjab University to conduct a Common Entrance Test for selection of students for admission to three year LL.B. (Professional) course for the session commencing from 2004-2005, for the various colleges affiliated to or run by the said University and the appellant university. The first respondent appeared for the entrance test held on 8.7.2004 and was declared successful. He attended the counselling and was selected and was admitted to St. Soldier 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 fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse. These findings of the High Court are challenged before us. 5. The academic qualification prescribed for admission to three years LL.B professional course (vide Handbook of Information)is as follows: Candidates who have passed bachelor's Degree of Guru 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 there to. 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 equivalent) was considered as an eligible qualification for admission, only where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as conjunctive as meaning `and', where the context warranted it. But the word `or' cannot obviously be read as referring to a conditional alternative, when such condition is not specified. In view of the provision relating to eligibility being 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 degree. 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 elig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iversities may provide for enrolment to a Master's degree course without a basic Bachelor's degree course, if certain requirements are fulfilled. Annamalai University has in fact made such 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 appellant university. The appellant university has issued an equivalency book containing the list of examinations of other universities recognized by the appellant university. Clause (5) of the said equivalency book reads thus: That correspondence courses conducted by other Universities/Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. The first respondent has passed his M.A. (OUS) from Annamalai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that 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. 14. The first respondent made a faint at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsity itself as to whether the distance education course attended by the first respondent was the same as correspondence course which was recognized. The first respondent was informed that he was not eligible, only after he 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 circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and recognized by the appellant university. This Court in Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
