[Doctrine Of Impossibility] Law Doesn't Permit Denial Of An Individual's Rights For Failure To Perform An Impossible Task: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has held that denial of opportunity to seek public employment forever to a particular class of students because they were unable to obtain an equivalency certificate due to being compelled to complete an impossible task is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, petitioners were denied an equivalency certificate by the Kerala Agricultural University...
The Kerala High Court has held that denial of opportunity to seek public employment forever to a particular class of students because they were unable to obtain an equivalency certificate due to being compelled to complete an impossible task is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In this case, petitioners were denied an equivalency certificate by the Kerala Agricultural University to apply for PSC exams stating that their University did not have ICAR accreditation during their period of study.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. relying upon the 'Doctrine of Impossibility' stated that students cannot be compelled to perform an impossible task. In this case, petitioners were the first batch of students from their University and practically their University could only apply for ICAR accreditation after the successful completion of the course by the first batch of students.
“This is particularly because the same denies the right of a class of persons to get an appointment in public employment without any fault attributable to them or even that of the institutions in which they had undergone the course. This would undoubtedly violate the laudable object behind the mandate contemplated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India since it amounts to unreasonable classification", stated the Court.
The petitioners completed BSc (Hons) degree in Agriculture from a University in Coimbatore during 2017-18 and completed their course in 2021. The Kerala Agricultural University rejected their request for an equivalency certificate to apply for PSC exams since the University from which petitioners completed the degree did not have ICAR accreditation during their period of study.
The petitioners contended that they were the first batch of students and as per guidelines stipulated by ICAR, accreditation could only be given to Higher Educational Institutions after at least one batch of students had passed out. It was thus asserted that their University could only apply for ICAR accreditation after the competition of the course by the first batch of students.
The petitioners submitted that their University received ICAR accreditation from 2022 and that it was practically impossible for first batch students to meet the condition set by the Kerala Agricultural University to obtain equivalency certificate. Additionally, they cited a notice from ICAR that exempted the first batch of students from the requirement to obtain accreditation in order to pursue further studies.
However, the respondents submitted that petitioners cannot be given equivalency certificate because their University received ICAR accreditation only after completion of their course.
The Court took note of the fact that the petitioners were the first batch of students and that their University was granted ICAR accreditation after the completion of their course. It stated that as per the guidelines of ICAR, Universities could apply for accreditation only after the first batch of students successfully completes their course.
The Court went on to note that ICAR itself provided an exemption to the first batch of students by considering their specific situation.
It noted that the decision taken by the respondents to deny equivalency certificates would deny the petitioners their opportunity to pursue career opportunities by compelling them to perform something impossible to be performed.
Relying upon the Apex Court decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others (2020), the Court stated thus, “To be precise, in Manoharlal's case (supra), it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that, if an order of the court disables a person to take any action, the doctrine “nemo tentur ad impossible” would be applicable, i.e., the law in general excuses a party which is disabled to perform a duty and impossibility to perform is a good excuse. The Latin maxim “lex non cogit ad impossibilia”, i.e., the law does not compel a man to do something which he cannot possibly perform, was also referred to.”
As such, the Court held that the rejection of equivalency certificate to petitioners for lack of ICAR accreditation was unjustified. It thus directed respondents to provide equivalency certificates to petitioners considering the exemption given by ICAR to the first batch of students.
Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Elvin Peter P J, Advocates K R Ganesh,
Gouri Balagopal, Sreelekshmi Ben
Counsel for Respondents: Standing Counsel M V Anandan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
Case Title: Anu George v The National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 21154 OF 2024
Click here to read/download Order