(2012) 234 KLR 972 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/15TH POUSHA 1933 WPC.No. 35167 of 2011 (U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- NITHYA K.V. (REG.NO.14092218) B.TECH STUDENT, B.TECH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, TRIKKARIPUR. BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, KALAMASSERY, PIN-682 024. 2. THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, TRIKKARIPUR CHEEMENI-671 313. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.M.A.KALAM, BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI (NO MEMO) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANGEETHA K.A THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARED ON 05-01-2012, ALONG WITH WPC.NO.35248/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MG WPC.No. 35167 of 2011 (U) ------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 15.12.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE MG S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) Nos. 35167 & 35248 of 2011 & 32, 34, 35, 36, 49, 66, 68, 69, 86, 89, 98, 103, 109, 112, 120, 154, 162, 170, 171, 201, 209, 254, 265, 268, 272, 278, 289, 294, 308, 313, 317, 323, 339, 345, 346, 348, 353 & 365 of 2012. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th day of January, 2012. Head Note:-
J U D G M E N T Our Constitution has seen 62 years of its implementation by the three pillars of democracy viz. the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Article 226 of the Constitution of India, falls within the domain of the Judiciary. At the beginning of the working of the Constitution, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was a comparative rarity and High Courts used to exercise jurisdiction under the said Article very sparingly. But over the last five decades the number of writ petitions under Article 226 has increased by geometrical proportions. High Courts have expanded the jurisdictional vistas of Article 226 beyond recognition and common man has become so aware of the remedy available to him to redress his grievances through this constitutional remedy, that for anything and everything people have started approaching the High Court with writ petitions under Article 226. While that fact reaffirms the faith of the common man in the judiciary, as a by-product, the High Court is finding it extremely difficult to contain the pendency of the writ petitions to manageable proportions. Pendency of writ petitions is steadily increasing. One of the reasons for this trend, at least in the case of writ petitions, is the failure of the Government officers and officers of other statutory bodies and instrumentalities of State to discharge their statutory duties within a reasonable time. Statutes have vested these bodies with executive and quasi-judicial functions. But things have come to a stage where officers entrusted with such functions discharge most of those functions only after the High Court issues writs of mandamus commanding them to exercise those functions within a time frame. Examples are legion. Various statutes provide for appeals and revisions against orders of assessment in taxation statutes. Like provisions are there in respect of executive action under the Kerala Education Act and the Rules made thereunder. In fact in almost all statutes quasi-judicial remedies are provided for. But it is distressing to note that these appeals and revisions are kept pending for years together unless the party obtains writs commanding disposal of the appeals and revisions. The same is the case of statutory executive functions as well. One example is the exercise of functions under the land laws. The statutes provide for mutation of properties, acceptance of land tax, survey of properties, fixation of boundaries, assignment of government land and so on. The officers vested with powers under those statutes rarely discharge their duties within time. For example, under the Transfer of Registry Rules, when property changes hands by a registered document, along with the document produced before the Sub Registrar's Office for registration, the party is required to file an application in the prescribed form also, a copy of the document so registered furnished on the reverse side of it, for transfer of registry, which the registering officer is bound to forward to the concerned Tahsildar and the Tahsildar and officers under him are bound to process the said application in accordance with the Rules. But the same is seldom, nay, never, done. Even when parties separately apply for transfer of registry paying court fee for the same, without an order from this court, more often than not, those applications are never processed. These areas are breeding grounds for corruption also. It has come to such a stage that even for accepting land tax due to the Government in respect of private properties, parties are forced to grease appropriate palms. Another area where this tendency is increasing is in the area of sanctioning of retirement benefits to retired employees. Most officers treat retired officers without any respect, forgetting that they are also bound to retire sooner or later. Resultantly, writ petitions seeking direction to disburse retirement benefits are also ever increasing. The number of writ petitions coming up before this court, seeking writs of mandamus for directing the statutory authorities to exercise their statutory duties, stands witness to this deplorable state of affairs. Consequently, this court finds it extremely difficult to cope up with the increasing number of writ petitions and the pendency steadily increases day by day. If citizens are forced to approach courts for getting officers to perform their statutory duties, spending large sums of money, which they can ill-afford, without any corresponding sanction on those officers for their lethargy, the same does not augur well for the well-being of the largest democracy in the world, which our country undoubtedly is reputed to be. The time spent for disposing of such cases can be saved, if people are not driven to this court for getting done what they are legally entitled to, without such an expensive exercise. One reason for this tendency, in my opinion, is the lenient attitude of the High Court in favour of such officers in, the matter of awarding costs. I am of the view that it is high time this Court makes officers of government and its instrumentalities accountable for such inaction, by imposing costs on those officers, who do not discharge their duties expediently, personally, without taxing the exchequer. If the government servants and employees of instrumentalities of State are made to do such duties promptly, which they are legally expected to do, without orders from this court, by appropriate legal sanctions, at least one third of the writ petitions coming up before this court can be avoided, giving more time for this court to attend to matters which necessarily requires to be decided only by this Court. 2. One such field, where such unnecessary litigation steadily increases, is the field of revaluation of answer papers by Universities in Kerala. Over the last decade, the number of writ petitions seeking expeditious revaluation of answer papers is ever increasing. No day passes in this court without at least ten writ petitions seeking expeditious revaluation of answer papers of university examinations being filed and disposed of in respect of all Universities in Kerala except, Kerala University. This batch of writ petitions, which the subject matter of this judgment numbering 40, filed over a period of three days, except two, are proof enough of the same. The Kerala University is the exception, I am told, not because they do their duties promptly, but because, instead of approaching this Court, students approach the Kerala Lok Ayukta for such relief, since for students of Kerala University the Lok Ayukta is geographically more accessible than the High Court. If the students do not get such orders, applications for revaluation are not attended to for months together, is the experience of this court gathered from the writ petitions filed before this court for such reliefs. Whenever such writ petitions are filed, this Court routinely disposes of the same by a direction to complete the revaluation process within a time frame. This process has become so routine that the Universities do not act without orders from this court in most cases of revaluation and therefore immediately after filing the application for revaluation, the students straightaway rush to this court with writ petitions for directions for time bound disposal of the applications for revaluation. Often, because of this lethargy on the part of the officers of the University, students lose a precious year of their life, insofar as some are deprived of admission to higher courses and some are deprived of jobs, for which the pass in the particular examination is the minimum qualification. Sometimes the revaluation results are not even published before the next examination in the subject, to know whether they should appear for which, is the very object of the revaluation process. This deplorable state of affairs is because of the lack of appropriate provisions in the Regulations of the University fixing a maximum period for completing the revaluation process or even when there are such Regulations, because of failure of the officers of the University to adhere to such time limit prescribed for completion of such revaluation process. I am of opinion that it is high time that this deplorable condition changes to the better. That is why, instead of disposing of these writ petitions by the usual directions to complete the revaluation process within a time frame, I have taken up these writ petitions for further consideration as to whether it is necessary to issue specific directions to see that the revaluation process is completed in an orderly manner within a specific frame, without the students having to approach this Court by filing expensive writ petitions to save students from unnecessary waste of time and money. I had requested standing counsel for all the Universities in Kerala to advance arguments and assist the Court in evolving a just procedure for ensuring expeditious completion of the process of revaluation and all those who had chosen to advance arguments were heard. 3. No doubt there is no automatic right for revaluation of answer papers, unless the Regulations applicable provide for the same. But the Regulations of all the Universities in Kerala provide for revaluation of answer papers of almost all examinations, except post-graduate examinations, practical examinations, field work, thesis submitted in lieu of a paper and such other examinations for which there is provision for double valuation. But the Regulations do not provide for a maximum time frame within which the revaluation process is to be completed, except the Cochin University of Science and Technology, who has prescribed a maximum time of 40 days from the date of receipt of the application for revaluation for completion of the revaluation process, in Clause 10(3) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology First Ordinances, 2001. But despite that statutory prescription, several writ petitions are coming up seeking revaluation of answer papers of examinations conducted by that University also. After having provided for revaluation of answer papers, there is no justification for not completing the process within a reasonable time, just because no outer time limit is prescribed for completing the process of revaluation. The very object of revaluation is to enable the student to come to a decision as to whether he should write the examination again. This situation assumes importance since mistakes in valuation is quite common these days, which may be because of human error, difference in approach of the examiner who conducts the valuation or because of sheer negligence in valuation. The Mahatma Gandhi University has, in their Examination Manual, which is not statutory, prescribed 81 days from the date of publication of the results as the time for completing the revaluation process. The University of Calicut has, very recently, by University Order No. Ad.A4/67/2010 dated 2-1- 2012, prescribed three months' time from the last date fixed for receipt of applications for revaluation, as the time frame for completing the revaluation process. But they are not statutory prescriptions and such time frame is honoured more by its breach than compliance going by the number of writ petitions seeking expeditious revaluation of answer papers, coming before this court regularly. 4. The University has woes of their own to present, as justification for the delay. They would submit that the number of answer papers valued and the number of applications for revaluation has increased tremendously, nowadays most students whether they fail in the examination or not, seek revaluation of answer papers and they do not have the infrastructure facilities and manpower to cope up with the volume of work involved. They complain that the Government do not sanction adequate staff proportionate to the increase in the work of the Universities. They would submit that apart from the actual revaluation, other administrative work also like getting back the answer papers from the teacher, who has done the original valuation, finding out another teacher for revaluation, sending the same to that teacher to do the revaluation and getting the same back after revaluation are also involved, which also would take time. They find it difficult to get teachers willing to take up the valuation work and payment for such valuation tells upon their financial resources heavily, which is already in the red. I need not ponder over those justifications for the delay much, since those were considered and answered against the Universities by a Division Bench of this Court as early as in 1991, in the decision of University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai, 1991 (1) KLT 812, while considering an appeal against a decree of the lower court awarding damages to a student, who was originally declared failed in the examination, but got first class on revaluation, which revaluation was delayed by 235 days, in the following words: "13. The facts narrated above, clearly establish a case of grievous negligence on the part of the University, its officers and servants. Ext.B2 contains a positive stipulation of the time within which the revaluation has to be effected and the results communicated to the students. Clause 4 of the guidelines could be usefully extracted in this connection: "Applications for revaluation should be submitted so as to be received by the Controller of Examinations within THREE WEEKS of the publication of the results of the concerned examinations and the result of revaluation communicated normally within a period of 45 days from the last date fixed for the receipt of applications." It is unnecessary to refer to other matters of detail as contained in the guidelines. It is admitted that the time limit indicated in Ext.B2 had not been adhered to by the University. It is not a marginal transgression of the time limit. As against the 45 days mentioned in clause 4, the actual delay in the case is 235 days. The contention was that a mere delay in the transmission of the revaluation results should not cast a heavy burden on the University, particularly in a situation where the University has to attend to the examinations wherein many thousands take part. While any court will be inclined to show an understanding consideration for the University discharging its obligations to a vast multitude of student population, the court will simultaneously watch with vigil whether every effort and endeavour had been taken by the officers and servants of the University to discharge the duties in tune with the scheme of the guidelines. In a country where unemployment is acute, the tension in a growing child facing grave and grey uncertainties of future, cannot be underrated. Educated employment would appear to be a special disadvantage, for the youth of the State noted for its literacy tradition. Every delay, whether it be in the conduct of the examination, the publication of the results or the issue of certificates, would have to be viewed by the courts in the background of the hopes and plans of the anxious youth struggling hard for a front rank in competitive examinations. Even though many thousands sit for and write the examinations, the question of revaluation would not assume unmanageable proportions. A large section among the students would have their own assessment of the performance. If they could not get through, and contrary to their own hopes entertained in that behalf, many will not bother to challenge the examination results with an application for revaluation. Only such of them as are reasonably confident would move for further steps for the revaluation of the answer papers. Marginal variations would not be of any help as is clear from the guidelines. The application for revaluation would ordinarily be expected from only persons who would have really fared well, and are confident of their good performance in the examination. It is a solemn obligation of the University to hurry with their applications without wasting even a second. 14. The University states that it has to determine the destiny of many thousand students and within a compressed time, and that the court should be appreciative of the practical difficulties in running and managing any massive human organisation. While appreciating the massiveness of the works that have to be done and even the time limit within which they have to be done and with perfection, we cannot, on that ground, exonerate the University of its fundamental obligation to complete the valuation of the merit of a student within time. Difficulties do not permit an authority to act in derogation of its duty such as the duty to observe principles of natural justice, (vide R v. Havering Justices, (1974) 3 All E.R. 484 at 488.) If men and material are inadequate, it is for the University to address itself on those questions and to find out appropriate and adequate remedies. It is not for the court to give an advice or guideline in such matters. The Universities were not born yesterday. The hallowed institutions carry with them the rich and ripe experiences of bygone ages, and of a rate variety of human species the cream of the intelligentsia. New situations-require modulations. That is precisely the duty of those with whom the functions of a University are entrusted by a solemn legislative enactment. A University is not yet another factory where production by numbers is fixed as the sole standard for payment of wages. The University cannot compromise with quality. The followers of Darwin cannot reconcile with anything imprecise in their life, even in the course of an innocent narrative in an informal meeting. (Darwin woke up from his sleep, to tell his lively awake friends in a dinner party, about an inaccurate statement which had crept in an earlier narrative he had made). We will not be justified in winking our eyes, at grievous lapses when they mar precious lives of a studious generation of students. If additional posts are required to cope up with the increased volume of work, it is the duty of the State to find out the resources needed for the same, and to resort to sophisticated and scientific methods which would destroy the tedium in the work and facilitate precision and speed simultaneously. The delay of about 8 months in the despatch of the revaluation marks, is murderous in character in relation to the educational life of a young student. Every second of the victim of the erroneous valuation is a lynching experience for the student. No court will permit such cruelties to pass unnoticed. (See the stern action taken by the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. v. Chittra Srivastava, AIR 1970 S.C. 1039)." (Underlining supplied) In the light of that decision, such excuses cannot be countenanced by this Court. Therefore the Universities cannot rely on those excuses for the delay in completing the revaluation process for which students apply, within a reasonable time, after receipt of applications for revaluation. 5. In this connection, I note that the Universities complain of lack of teachers willing to undertake valuation work also and lack of adequate financial resources required for getting valuation done by teachers. I am of opinion that the situation is of their own making in so far as they have ample powers to insist on all teachers undertaking examination work as part of their teaching job, for which they are more than adequately paid, which the Universities do not enforce appropriately, which resulted in the situation they are in. Section 80A of the Kerala University Act provides thus: "80A. Duty of teachers, etc. in connection with University Examinations.- (1) It shall be the duty of a teacher or a member of the non-teaching staff of an affiliated college or an officer, teacher or other employee of the University to do any work in connection with an examination conducted by the University which he is required by the competent officer or authority of the University to do. (2) If any teacher or member of the non-teaching staff of an affiliated college or any officer, teacher or other employee of the University refuses, without sufficient cause to the satisfaction of,- (a) in the case of a teacher or a member of the non- teaching staff of an affiliated college, an officer not below the rank of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education authorised by the Government in this behalf; and (b) in the case of an officer, teacher or other employee of the University, the Vice-Chancellor, to do any work in connection with an examination conducted by the University, when required to do so by the competent officer or authority of the University, he shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, forfeit his pay and allowances for a period of two months commencing on the date of commencement of the examination. Explanation.- Failure to comply with the requisition of the competent officer or authority of the University shall be deemed to be refusal for the purposes of this sub- section. (3) An order of forfeiture under sub-section (2) shall be made,- (a) in the case of a teacher or a member of the non- teaching staff of an affiliated college, by the officer authorised under clause (a) of the said sub-section; and (b) in the case of an officer, teacher or other employee of the University, by the Vice-Chancellor. (4) No order of forfeiture shall be made under sub-section (3) without giving the person who may be affected thereby an opportunity of being heard. (5) Any person aggrieved by an order referred to in sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date on which a copy of such order is served on him, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and after such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order thereon as it deems fit." Identical provisions are incorporated in the other University Acts also. (See, for example, Section 90 of the Kannur University Act, Section 79A of the Calicut University Act, Section 88 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, etc.) Apart from that I understand that the University Grants Commission Scheme, recommending higher scales of pay to college and university teachers, which has been adopted by the Kerala Government for teachers of Universities and government and aided Colleges in Kerala, makes it clear that examination duties are part of the duties of the teachers and the higher scales of pay have been fixed taking into account that fact also. In fact I doubt very much whether the UGC Scheme has achieved the very laudable object for which the same has been introduced by the Government of India, by spending huge amounts of money, viz. to improve the standards of University education in the country, which can only be because of the failure of the Universities and the Government to implement the provisions of the scheme, with the vigour it ought to have been. If that be so, there is no necessity to pay the teachers for examination duties also separately. Despite the same the Universities force junior teachers to do all the examination duties, while largely senior teachers are unwilling to undertake examination work. I am of opinion that in view of the above mandatory provisions, each and every teacher in the University departments and affiliated colleges in the State shall be compulsorily required to undertake examination work as part of their teaching duties including the work of valuation of answer papers. The Universities should enforce these provisions strictly. 6. Therefore the need to adopt urgent measures required for expeditious disposal of applications for revaluation, in the present scenario, can never be exaggerated. As far as these writ petitions are concerned, I have already issued interim orders as follows, which effectively dispose of the writ petitions themselves: "In all these writ petitions the revaluation applied for by the petitioners shall be completed and their results published, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Wherever applications for scrutiny of answer papers are submitted, the same shall be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in such cases two months would start from the date of expiry of the two weeks." Therefore these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the above said interim orders, but with the following directions to the Universities to be followed in future. 7. In future, for effective and expeditious disposal of applications for revaluation of answer papers of examinations, all the Universities in Kerala shall strictly comply with the following directions, in letter and spirit: (a) All the Universities shall reduce the time limit for submitting applications for revaluation to 15 days of publication of results of the examination. Copy of mark lists shall not be insisted upon to be produced along with the application. For enabling the students to know in which subject they have to seek revaluation the marks of each student, in each subject shall be uploaded in the University web site at the time of publication of the results itself. (b) Each University shall increase the number of sections dealing with revaluation applications and each section shall be manned by adequate staff commensurate with the number of applications for revaluation being received. (c) The persons entrusted with the regular valuation of answer papers shall be directed to compulsorily return valued answer papers within a specified time after valuation, which shall, in any event, be before the publication of the results, so that the answer papers would be readily available, when the applications for revaluation comes in. (d) All the answer papers of a particular examination for which applications for revaluation are received shall be valued together. Individual requests for early revaluation shall not be entertained to ensure the secrecy, confidentiality and transparency of the revaluation process as well, like the regular valuation. The Universities shall arrange to have centralised valuation camps for revaluation also, like regular valuation, wherever situation demands the same. (e) All affiliated colleges shall periodically send lists of all qualified teachers working in their colleges, who are liable to be engaged for examination work, including valuation of answer papers. All such teachers shall be compulsory required to take up examination duties including valuation of answer papers. Any teacher who refuses to undertake examination work including valuation of answer papers shall be imposed with appropriate sanction, for which adequate provision shall be made, if not already made. (f) All teachers shall be asked to complete valuation of answer papers including revaluation and return the answer papers within a definite time frame, which the teachers shall adhere to strictly, failure in doing which shall also be dealt with strictly and appropriate sanction shall be imposed on erring teachers for the delay. (g) Negligence in valuation shall also be visited with appropriate sanction as applicable to delay in completing valuation work. In case of disparity in marks, beyond permissible limits, between the original valuation and the revaluation, the same shall be sent to an expert to ascertain the reasons for such disparity and if such disparity is attributable to the teacher conducting the valuation or revaluation as the case may be, shall be appropriately dealt with so as to minimise the effect of subjectivity in valuation beyond permissible limits. If it is found that any teacher is guilty of any negligence in the matter of valuation, appropriate sanction shall be imposed on that teacher. (h) Revaluation results shall be published before the last date fixed for submitting applications for the next regular/ supplementary examination for the particular examination. In any event revaluation results shall be published within 45 days from the last date fixed for applying for revaluation. This is the outer time limit and revaluations shall be completed earlier, if possible, like in the case of fewer applications for revaluation. For any delay, the teachers/officers responsible shall be made accountable. However, in respect of the Cochin University of Science and Technology, who have already framed Ordinances, the time limit prescribed by the Ordinances shall continue to apply. (i) These directions are not exhaustive and the Universities are free to adopt such other measures as they think fit, which would ensure speedier completion of the revaluation process. 8. The Universities who have not yet framed appropriate Regulations/Ordinances will do well to do the same in tune with the above directions, till which time in respect of revaluation, the above directions shall be strictly complied with, failure to do which shall be at the risk of costs and damages that this court may deem fit to impose in appropriate cases, personally on those who are responsible for the delay, if the same are brought to the attention of this Court. All the Universities in Kerala shall implement these directions immediately. 9. Before parting with the case, I would like to bring to the attention of the Universities the following observations of the Division Bench in Sandhya P. Pai's case (supra) in paragraph 16 thereof: "16. It is unnecessary in this case to launch on a discussion about the origin, growth and flourishing of the great Universities from early times. Nor is it necessary even to sketch their position in modern India. An effort was made in India, in early days, "to raise the standard of higher education". The first five Universities of Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Lahore, and Allahabad undertook instruction and supervision as well as examination. The Senates of the Universities of the early days took in High Court Judges, Bishops, members of Executive Councils, the Provincial Directors of Public Instruction and Professors of Government and missionary colleges. (See "The New Spirit in India", by Henry W. Nevinson, pages 4 & 5). It is not without reason that a University is thought about as "a place of light, of liberty and of learning." (See The Governance of England, by Sioney Low, page 146). Time was when the University and its academic bodies had received the greatest of respect from courts. (See University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 S.C. 491). The large number of cases in which the courts have been forced, to interfere even in matters of academic character, is a sad but striking feature of the current functioning of many of the Universities. The disinclination of a court to disturb the normal functioning of these institutions of learning, cannot dissuade the court from meting out justice to a student who had suffered much. In our administration set up, the University is a constitutional instrumentality and the State coming within Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot act arbitrarily, unfairly or unreasonably. A citizen injured by a neglect on the part of such a statutory instrumentality would be entitled to be indemnified in respect of damages sustained by it. Old notions about cases where no duty of care was found to be owed by a University (as in Thorne v. University of London, (1966) 2 Q.B. 237 and Sammy v. Birkbeck College, The Times, May 20, 1965) cannot then be invoked to disown liability of the University. (No such attempt was made in the present case. The two decisions were not relied on by the University. It is also doubtful whether the summary of the legal position on this aspect as given by Charlesworth on Negligence 7th Edition, para 2-13a, Page 31, is very precise.) In the present case, there is a positive representation by the University under Ext.B2 of its obligation in supplying the revalued marks within a normal period of 45 days. That is yet another ground for distinguishing cases in which no such representation had been made to the student community." I note with consternation that even after two decades since Sandhya P. Pai's case, the powers that be could not arrest the downward slide in the standards of University education in the State, which is the subject of the above lamentation of this Court, with any amount of expediency, especially with the advent of self-financing colleges, which have sprouted in the State, like mushrooms, during the last decade. The standards have only further deteriorated drastically. It has come to such a stage that, in the very near future, before going to a doctor or a dentist, we should first ascertain as to from which college he has obtained his degree. Our education system has started dumping sub-standard specimens on the unsuspecting public. It is alarming to note that in matrimonial columns prospective brides and bridegrooms qualify their degrees with the epithet `in merit seat'. Perhaps, the Courts may also be responsible, to some extent, in not taking appropriate action to arrest this slide, when opportunities presented themselves before them. I hope that wisdom would dawn, at least now, on the powers that be, including the courts, to set things right, before it gets out of hand, to the detriment of the people of the State. The Registry shall forward copies of this judgment to the Registrars of all the Universities in Kerala for information and appropriate expeditious action as directed above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ |
