042-SLLR-SLLR-2005-V-3-MITHUNRAJ-vs.-UNIVERSITY-GRANTS-COMMISSIONER-AND-OTHERS.pdf
244
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2005) 3 Sri L. R.
MITHUNRAJ
vs.
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND OTHERS
COURT OF APPEAL.
IMAM, J.
SRISKANDARAJAH, J.
C. A. WRIT 498/2003.
MAY 4, 2005.
University Grants Commission – University Admissions – Selection of Univer-sity – On what criteria? – Who determines the administrative district of a candi-date for admission? – School candidate and private candidate – Is there adifference?
The Petitioner was informed by the 1st respondent on 10.06.2002 that he hasbeen selected to follow a course of study in Medicine at the University of Jaffna.Later on 17.08.2002 he was informed by the 1st respondent that for the pur-pose of University admission the District is Colombo and not Mannar andcancelled the selection. The petitioner sought to quash the said decision.
CA
Mithunraj vs. University Grants Commission
and Others(Sriskandarajah, J.)
245
The respondents contended that the relevant three year period to be consid-ered for University admission for the academic year 2002/03 was from
to 31.08.2001, and that the petitioner was studying in Mannar from
to 17.02.1999 – 6 months and 16 days and at Colombo from
to 19.06.2000 – 1 year 3 months and 27 days and since the peti-tioner falls within the first limb of Rule 40.1 – that he has studied in a school fora period of more than one year his District is Colombo and that the petitionerhas furnished false and inaccurate information that he should be consideredfor admission from Mannar District.
HELD:
Rule 4.2 draws a distinction between a school candidate and a privatecandidate. In the case of a private candidate the rules not only requiresthe candidate to produce the school leaving certificate or pupils recordbut also requires him to submit evidence of a permanent place ofresidence. In a case of a private candidate both the school and resi-dence become relevant when Rules 4.1 and 4.2 are read together.
The petitioner is a private candidate and the major part of the studiesduring the relevant period was in Mannar. The relevant period is from01.08.1978 to 31.08.2001. The petitioner had studied at Mannar from01.08.1998 – 17.02.1999 (6 months, 16 days) Colombo 22.02.1999 –
(1 year and 3 months 27 days) and returned to Mannar toreside and studied in Mannar from 26.06.2000 – 31.08.2001., a periodof 1 year 2 months and 14 days.
The determination of the administrative district of a candidate for ad-mission to the University is vested with the 1st respondent – and notwith the candidate.
Per Sriskandarajah, J.
"Column 4 of the application for university admission form and column8 of the computer data sheet annexed to the application possess onlya question" From which administrative district should you beconsidered for admission" – answering this question by mentioninga district by a candidate will not tantamount for a declaration of thecandidate but it is a request of a candidate to consider him as acandidate from that particular administrative district for admission onthe material furnished by him.”
246
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2005) 3 Sri L. R.
The application form has a specific column for office use. This col-umn is for the office to indicate the district after verifying the docu-ments and other material submitted in accordance with the relevantrules. This is not done by copying the district entered by the candidatein column 8 but by an officer of the 1st respondent after verifying thedocuments and materials.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari.
Geoffrey Alagaratnam with M. P. Puvitharan for petitioner.
Ms. M. N. B. Fernando, Senior State Counsel for respondents.
Cur.adv.vult.
June 28, 2005.
SRISKANDARAJAH, J.The Petitioner submitted that he was born at Vidatalthivu Mannar on16.12.1981 resided and had his early education at Vidatalthivu R. C.T. M.School Vidatalthivu Mannar from 05.01.1987 to 03.01.1995-P1. Thereafterat St. Xavier’s M. M. V.Mannar from 02.01.1995 to 17.02.1999-P2. andHindu College Colombo 04 from 22.02.1999 to 19.06.2000-P3. He submitteddue to the security situation prevalent in Colombo around June 2000 andon account of prevalent tension resulting from sudden security searchesand questioning the Petitioner left Hindu College Colombo and went backto Mannar to reside in Mannar as he was not successful in his G. C. E.(AIL) first attempt and continued his studies as a private candidate inMannar. He sat for the G. C. E. (Advance Level) examination in August2001 at Mannar St. Xavier’s M. M. V. exam center as a private candidateP4, P 5. The Petitioner tendered his application in the prescribed form tofollow Medical Degree as his first preference P6. This was acknowledgedby the 1st Respondent by its letter dated 01.04.2002 stating inter-aliathat the Petitioners’ District for the purpose of admission will be Mannar(12) )P7.The 1st Respondent by its letter dated 10.06.2002 informed thePetitioner that he has been selected to follow a course of study in medicineat the University of Jaffna P8. The Petitioner registered as an internalstudent of the University of Jaffna on 03.07.2002.
CAMithunraj vs. University Grants Commission247
and Others(Sriskandarajah, J.)
The 1 st Respondent informed the Petitioner by its letter of 17.08.2002P10 that it has been revealed that your District for the purpose of theUniversity admission should be Colombo and not Mannar and he wasasked to show cause why his selection to follow a course of study inMedicine at the University of Jaffna for the academic year 2002/2003 shouldnot be cancelled. The Petitioner replied to this letter on 30.08.2001.
The Petitioner submitted that he received a letter on 14.02.2003 dated
from the 1st Respondent informing him that the Petitioner’sselection to follow a course of study in medicine has been cancelled-P11.The Petitioner submits that the regulation for academic year 2002/2003P18 was unreasonably and wrongfully applied against him. He was notcalled for any inquiry or clarification or provided an adequate opportunity ofbeing heard prior to the aforesaid decision, other than P10 which is ashow cause letter. In these circumstances the determination or decisionof the 1st and/or 3rd Respondents P11 and P12 is ultra vires, withoutjurisdiction, unreasonable, arbitrary and in violation of the principles ofnatural justice.
The Respondents submitted that the relevant three year period to beconsidered for university admission for the academic year 2002/2003 wasfrom 01.08.1998 to 31.08.2001 and that the Petitioner was studying at St.Xavier’s College, Mannar from 01.08.1998 to 17.02.1999 a period of6 months and 16 days and at Hindu College, Colombo from 22.02.1999 to
a period of 1 year 3 months and 27 days. The Respondentssubmitted that since the Petitioner had studied in a school for a period ofmore than one year the Petitioner falls within the first limb of Rule 04.1 ofthe regulations. As the major part of the stipulated three year period wasin Colombo District i.e. 1 year 3 months and 27 days at Hindu College thePetitioner’s application should be considered for university admission asper Admission Rules from the Colombo District and has been wrongfullyindicated by the Petitioner in P6. Therefore the information furnished bythe Petitioner in his application P6 was false and inaccurate and the decisionto cancel the Petitioner’s registration is correct, lawful and valid and inaccordance with the law.
The relevant Rules applicable to the admission to the university for theacademic year 2002/2003 is marked as P17. The determination of districtsof candidates is dealt with in Rule 4. It reads as follows :
248
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2005) 3 Sri L. R.
For purpose of university admission, the district of a candidatewill be determined as follows:-
The district of any candidate will be the district of location of school/schools in which he/she studied during the major part of the three- year period ending on the last day of the month immediatelypreceding the month in which he/she sat the G.C.E.(A/L)Examination to qualify for admission.
Provided however the district of a candidate who has studied in aschool for a period of less than one year during the three yearperiod stipulated above will be determined on the basis of thelocation of school/schools in which he/she had studied, permanentplace of residence of the candidate and other evidence as decidedby the UGC.
In the case of a candidate who sat G.C.E.(A/L) examination as aschool candidate, the head of the school concerned should certify,on the basis of school records, the accuracy of the informationprovided by the candidates. Every candidate who sat the G.C.E.(AIL) examination as a private candidate should send along withhis/her application for admission his/her school Leaving Certificateor Pupil’s Record Sheet and documentary evidence on permanentplace of residence, e.g. extracts of Electoral Register, GramaNiladhari Certificate and other relevant documents.
Rule 4.2 draws a distinction between a school candidate and a privatecandidate. In the case of a school candidate the head of the schoolconcerned should certify, on the basis of school records, the accuracy ofthe information provided by the candidates. But in the case of a privatecandidate the rules not only requires the candidate to produce the schoolleaving certificate or pupil’s record but also requires to submit evidence ofpermanent place of residence. This shows that the framers of these rulescontemplated a situation where the residence of a private candidatebecomes material. In case of a private candidate both the school and theresidence becomes relevant i.e. the period of schooling and the period ofstudies without attending school within the three-year stipulated periodbecomes relevant when Rules No. 4.1 and 4.2 are read together. Thisposition is further supported by the steps taken by the University Grants
CA
Mithunraj vs. University Grants Commission
and OthersfSriskandarajah, J.j
249
Commission to amend said Rule 4.1 for the next academic year namely2003/2004 to make the position clear. The amended Rule 4.1 reads as “theschool/schools in which the candidate was enrolled (on the basis of schoolrecords) for the maximum number of days during the three-year period."
In this instant application, it is common ground that the Petitioner is aprivate candidate and the major part of the studies of the Petitioner duringthe relevant period was in Mannar. The relevant period is from 01.08.1998to 31.08.2001 and that the Petitioner had studied at St. Xavier’s College,Mannar from 01.08.1998 to 17.02.1999a period of6 months and 16 daysand at Hindu College, Colombo from 22.02.1999 to 19.06.2000 a period of1 year 3 months and 27 days and returned to Mannar and studied in Mannarfrom 20.06.2000 to 31.08.2001 a period of 1 year 2 months and 14 days.
Whatever it may be, the determination of the administrative district of acandidate for the admission to the University is vested with the 1stRespondent and not with the candidate. It is clearly borne out by thescheme formulated in the application form. The column 4 of the Applicationfor university admission form and column 8 of the computer data sheetannexed to the application form poses only a question “From whichadministrative district should you be considered for admission?” Answeringthis question by mentioning a district by a candidate will not tantamountto a declaration of the candidate but it is a request of a candidate toconsider him as a candidate from that particular administrative district foradmission on the material furnished by him. The computer data sheetannexed to the application form at the bottom of page 2 has provided ascheme to consider this request at the outset by the officers of the 1stRespondent with the document and the materials submitted by thecandidate in keeping with the provisions of the rules. Once they make adetermination they enter the district in the given column at the bottom ofpage 2 of the computer data sheet and certify that he has checked therelevant information to arrive at this decision. The Respondent communicatesthis decision to the applicant when acknowledging the receipt of theapplication. Accordingly, the officers of the 1st Respondent in keepingwith the request of the Petitioner after considering the information supportedwith the documents had come to the conclusion that the district for thepurpose of admission of the Petitioner to the University is Mannar. It is
250
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2005) 3 Sri L. R.
communicated by the 1 st Respondent to the Petitioner by P7 which states“Your District for the purpose of admission will be Mannar, 12.".
The court also observes that the 2nd Respondent has failed to submit acopy of the application of the Petitioner after it was processed by the 1 stRespondent for the university admission. The application has a specificcolumn for office use at page 2. This column is for the office to indicate thedistrict after verifying the documents and other material submitted inaccordance with the relevant rules. The Respondent without submittingthe Petitioner’s processed application has annexed three other applicationsrelating to other candidates as 2R2,2R3 and 2R4 which had been processed.These applications clearly demonstrate at page two in the column “foroffice use only” that the relevant district of the candidate should be enteredby an official. This is not done by copying the district entered by thecandidate in column 8 but an officer of the 1 st Respondent after verifyingthe documents and materials has to determine the district and enter thesame and sign the adjoining column to certify that he has checked.
Rule 4 contains a foot note. It reads as follows:
“IMPORTANT’
“The heads of schools should take special care to ensure that correctinformation is provided by the candidates. Provision of incorrect informationby any candidate will be considered a serious offence and liable fordisciplinary action. A candidate who has been found to provide incorrectinformation will lose his/her admission/registration at whatever point inhis/her career at the university and will not qualify for the award of a degree."
The counsel for the Respondent submitted that the only incorrectinformation that was submitted by the Petitioner is in column 8 i.e. heshould be considered for admission from Mannar District. As I havediscussed above this is not information but only a request of the Petitionerbased on the information and documentations submitted by him. Thedecision to treat the Petitioner as a candidate from Mannar District is thatof the 1 st Respondent based on the information provided by the Petitioner.None of the information or documents provided by the Petitioner to arriveat that conclusion by the 1 st Respondent was found to be incorrect. Underthese circumstances the 1st Respondent is not entitled to cancel theselection of the Petitioner to follow a course of study in Medicine at the
CA
De Silva vs. Wettimuny
251
University of Jaffna. Therefore the Court issues a writ of certiorari to quashthe decision of the 1st Respondents as communicated by letters dated
(P11) and the decision of the 4th Respondent communicatedby letter dated 10.02.2003 (P12). The question of issuing a writ ofmandamus does not arise as the Petitioner is continuing his course ofstudy at the faculty of Medicine at the University of Jaffna in pursuance ofan interim order issued by this court. The court allows this applicationwithout costs.
IMAM, J. — / agree.
Application allowed.