Pradip Tripathi v. University of Allahabad — 1980 DIGILAW 1278 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - The petitioners who are four in number applied for admission to the Management of Business Administration Course for 1979-80 in University of Allahabad. They appeared at the written test along with many other but they were (not?) selected for admission to the said course, instead 30 students were granted admission by order of the Head of the Department dated 5-8-1980. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 5-8-1980, as well as the admission of respondents Nos. 3 to 32 to the Management of Business Administration Course. 2. On 2-6-1980, notices were published in various newspapers on behalf of the University inviting applications for admission to the Management of Business Administration (hereinafter referred to as M.B.A.) and 12-7-1980, was fixed as the last date for making applications. All the petitioners applied for admission to the said course within time. In all 545 candidates applied for admission. On July 17, 1980, a letter was issued to all the candidates informing them that they were required to appear at the admission test for the session 1979-80 which was to be held from August 3 to 5, 1980. The letter further stated that a candidate who qualified in the written test (whose result was to be announced on August 5, 1980), would be required to appear at the oral test on August 5, 1980 and those finally selected for admission will have to deposit necessary fee on August 6, 1980. The petitioners appeared at the qualifying test but they failed to qualify, they were not called for oral test. Consequently they were not selected for admission to the M.B.A., course. Thirty candidates were selected whose names were published under the orders of the Head of the Department on 5-8-1980, which included the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 32. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come up to this Court challenging the admissions on a number of grounds . 3. Sri M. Katju, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that admission to a course of study in the University is made under the authority of the Admissions Committee constituted under Section 28 of the State Universities Act. 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Admissions Committee is an authority under the Act and the admission to various courses are made in accordance with the directions issued by it. 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Admissions Committee is an authority under the Act and the admission to various courses are made in accordance with the directions issued by it. The selection for admission to M.B.A. course was made by Dr. B. N. Asthana Head of the Department although he was not authorised by the Admissions Committee. Consequently the admission made by him are wholly illegal. He further urged that the procedure adopted for holding the written and oral test was in violation of the directions issued by the Admission Committee. Dr. B.N. Asthana acted illegally in excluding a large number of candidates from the oral interview. The petitioners were entitled to appear at the oral test but they were illegally prevented as a result of which they were not selected. The petitioners had a better academic record than those who had been selected, this happened on account of arbitrary selections being made by Dr. B.N. Asthana, on extraneous considerations. 4. Section 28 of the Act provides for constitution of Admissions Committee. Section 28 regulates admission to the University, constituent colleges and affiliated colleges. Section 28 is in the following terms :- "28 Admissions Committee (1) There shall be an Admissions Committee of the University the constitution of which shall be such as may be provided for in the Ordinances. (2) The Admissions Committee shall have the power to appoint such number of sub-committees as it thinks fit. (3) Subject to the superintendence of the Academic Council and to the provisions of sub-section (5) the Admissions Committee shall lay down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission of various courses of studies in the University and may also nominate a person or a sub-committee as the admitting authority in respect of any course of study in an institute or a constituent college maintained by the University. (4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (5) the Committee may issue any direction as respects criteria or methods of admissions including the number of students to be admitted to constituent colleges maintained by the State Government and affiliated or associated colleges, and such directions shall be binding on such colleges. (4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (5) the Committee may issue any direction as respects criteria or methods of admissions including the number of students to be admitted to constituent colleges maintained by the State Government and affiliated or associated colleges, and such directions shall be binding on such colleges. (5) Admissions to medical and engineering colleges and to courses of instruction for degrees in education including the number of students to be admitted shall be regulated by such orders as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, make in that behalf. (6) No student admitted to any college in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be permitted to take up any examination conducted by the University, and the Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to cancel any admission made in such contravention. The above provisions lay down that there shall be an Admissions Committee constituted in accordance with the Ordinance and it has power to appoint Sub-Committee. The Committee is empowered to lay down principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University subject to the superintendence of the Academic Council. The Committee has, however, no power to regulate admission to medical and engineering colleges and also to degrees in education as admission to those courses is regulated by the orders of the State Govt. The Committee is authorised to nominate a person or sub-committee as admitting authority in respect of any course of study in an institute or a constituent college of the University. The Committee has power to issue directions laying down criteria and method of admission to the constituent colleges maintained by the State Government and to other affiliated or associated colleges. The directions issued by the admissions committee are binding and no student admitted in contravention of Section 28 is entitled to appear at any examination conducted by the University. 5. In accordance with Section 28 of the Act an Admissions Committee was constituted by the University which held its meeting on 18th May, 1980. The minutes of that meeting have been annexed with the supplementary counter-affidavit of Dr. B.M. Singh. A perusal of the minutes shows that the Committee laid down general principles for the purpose of admission to various courses of study. The minutes of that meeting have been annexed with the supplementary counter-affidavit of Dr. B.M. Singh. A perusal of the minutes shows that the Committee laid down general principles for the purpose of admission to various courses of study. As regards admission to M.B.A. class, the Committee approved the basis of admission, according to which examination for admission to that course of study was to be held, on the following basis:- (a) Communication Ability Test 100 marks (b) Academic Aptitude Test 100 marks (c) General Background Test 100 marks (d) Group Leadership Test 100 marks (e) Oral Test 100 marks (f) Essay in an Indian Language 100 marks (g) Past Academic Record 200 marks Total 800 marks The Committee further approved the principles for giving weightage to the students for admission to M.B.A. class and the Vice-Chancellor was authorised to accept the names of candidates recommended by the Committee consisting of Dr. S.B. Adaval and Dr. B.N. Asthana. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by Dr. B.N. Asthana Head of the Department it is asserted that in accordance with the policy approved by the Admissions Committee a written test was held and 76 candidates were called for interview, after ascertaining the marks at the said interview 30 candidates who had obtained highest marks were selected for admission. The names of the selected candidates were forwarded by Dr. B.N. Asthana and the Vice-Chancellor accepted them as a result of which respondents Nos. 3 to 32 were admitted to M.B.A. course for the year 1979-80. Dr. B.N. Asthana has further asserted that he was authorised by the Ordinances framed by the University as contained in Chapter XXXVII of the Ordinances to make admission to the M.B.A. class. Clause 1 of the said Ordinance lays down that a candidate who has passed his Bachelor's degree is eligible for admission to M.B.A. class subject to his satisfactory performance at the test held by the Head of the Department. The admission of a candidate to the M.B.A. class therefore depends upon his satisfactory performance at the test held by the Head of the Department. Since Dr. B.N. Asthana was Head of the Department, he was authorised by the Ordinance to hold test for the purpose of determining the eligibility for admission to M.B.A. class. The admission of a candidate to the M.B.A. class therefore depends upon his satisfactory performance at the test held by the Head of the Department. Since Dr. B.N. Asthana was Head of the Department, he was authorised by the Ordinance to hold test for the purpose of determining the eligibility for admission to M.B.A. class. These Ordinances have not been framed after the enforcement of the State Universities Act, 1973 instead these were framed under the Allahabad University Act of 1921. Section 51 of the 1973 Act provides for framing of Ordinances for regulating admissions to University and their enrolment and continuances and conduct of examinations. It is undisputable that after the enforcement of the 1973 Act new Ordinances have not been framed as contemplated by Section 51, instead the old Ordinances have continued in, force by virtue of Section 52 (1) of the Act which provides that the First Ordinance of each existing University shall be the Ordinance as in force immediately before the commencement of the Act in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The Ordinance contained in Chapter XXXVII of the University calendar (1968 Ed.). Authorising the Head of the Department to hold test for admitting candidates to M.B.A. class was in force immediately before the commencement of the Act, therefore the Ordinance continues to remain in force as new Ordinances have not been framed replacing the old ones. Dr. B.N. Asthana who was the Head of the Department was thus competent to hold the examination to make admission to the M.B.A. class. 7. Learned counsel then urged that Clause 1 of the Ordinances authorising the Head of the Department to hold the test or make selection is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, therefore the old Ordinance ceased to be effective and the Head of the Department had no authority in law to make admission. Learned counsel referred to sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act in support of his contention that admission to a course of study in the University can be made only by a person or authority nominated by the Admissions Committee. Since the Ordinance authorises the Head of the Department, it was inconsistent with sub-section (3) of Section 28. We are unable to accept this contention. Sub-section (3) of Section 28 is in two parts. Since the Ordinance authorises the Head of the Department, it was inconsistent with sub-section (3) of Section 28. We are unable to accept this contention. Sub-section (3) of Section 28 is in two parts. The first part confers power on the Admissions Committee to lay down principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University. The second part confers power on the Admissions Committee to nominate a person or a sub-committee as the admitting authority in respect of any course of study in an institute or a constituent college maintained by the University. The second part thus does not apply to admission to any course of study of a Department of the University, instead it applies to an institution or constituent college maintained by the University. The Admissions Committee has therefore no power to nominate any person or a sub-committee to make admissions in respect of any course of study of a Department of the University itself. The existing Ordinance as contained in Chapter XXXVII authorising the Head of the Department to make admissions to M.B.A. is, therefore, not inconsistent with Section 28 (3) of the Act and the Head of the Department continues to have authority to hold test and make admission to M.B.A. class. 8. It was then urged that the classes for M.B.A. are held in the Motilal Nehru Institute which is an institute as contemplated by Section 28 (3) of the Act. As such admission to M.B.A. course could be made only by a person or authority nominated by the Admissions Committee. In this connection, learned counsel referred to a booklet issued by the University giving information in respect of the courses in Business Administration, Business Statistics and Industrial Sociology and part-time Diploma Course in the University. The Booklet states that the Motilal Nehru Institute of Research and Business Administration functions under the jurisdiction of the University of Allahabad on its Chatham Lines Campus and it offers post-graduate two years full time programme leading to the Degree of Master of Business Administration. It further states that the Faculty consists of people with varied educational background and regular teaching done by the institute is supplemented by visiting professors, Researchers and experts from all India and abroad. The Booklet contains in detail the procedure for making selection for admission to Master of Business Administration course. It further states that the Faculty consists of people with varied educational background and regular teaching done by the institute is supplemented by visiting professors, Researchers and experts from all India and abroad. The Booklet contains in detail the procedure for making selection for admission to Master of Business Administration course. It also contains the curriculum of study. There is no dispute that the Booklet uses the word 'institute' at several places, which creates an impression that the M.B.A. course under the University is conducted separately by an institute known as Motilal Nehru Institute of Research and Business Administration. The respondents have on the other hand seriously contended that the Business Administration Course is under the Faculty of Commerce, and Motilal Nehru Institute of Research and Business Administration is not an institute as contemplated by the Act. 9. The expression 'institute' as defined by S. 2 (12) of the Act means an institute established by the University under Section 44. Sec. 44 lays down that the University may establish one or more institutes to organise teaching and research in any subject. An institute established by the University contemplates a Director who would be its Head as would be clear from Section 2 (7). Under Section 25 (2)(v) the Director of the Institute is entitled to be a member of the Academic Council. Motilal Nehru Institute of Research and Business Administration was not constituted or established in accordance with Section 44 of the Act after the enforcement of the Act on 12th June, 1973. The minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council dated October 29, 1960 as contained in the minutes for the year 1960 published by the University of Allahabad show that the proposal to establish the Motilal Nehru Institute of Research and Business Administration was forwarded to the University Grants Commission. The Appendix to those minutes further show that the Head of the Commerce Department had prepared a scheme for the establishment of the Institute of Business Administration and Research in the University and for that purpose efforts were made to raise funds. Sri G.D. Birla, a noted industrialist, agreed to give a donation of Rs. 5 lacs for the purpose. The donor desired that the institute be named after the national leader Sri Motilal Nehru. The University thereupon approached the University Grants Commission for sanction of Rs. 10 lacs as non-recurring grant for establishing the institute. Sri G.D. Birla, a noted industrialist, agreed to give a donation of Rs. 5 lacs for the purpose. The donor desired that the institute be named after the national leader Sri Motilal Nehru. The University thereupon approached the University Grants Commission for sanction of Rs. 10 lacs as non-recurring grant for establishing the institute. The Commission agreed to give a maximum non-recurring grant of Rs. 2 lacs only. The Chairman of the University Grants Commission informed the University that the Commission was not concerned with the Business Research and the University could give any name as they desired. The Commission expressed its willingness to assist the University on the usual sharing basis for setting up of the Department of Business Administration provided the All India Council for Technical Education were satisfied that the Allahabad University should have this Department. The Chairman further stated that the Department could be located in the proposed institute but the Commission will give no assistance in any form for the institute as such. The minutes make it amply clear that the University's proposal to establish a separate institute having a Director was not accepted as the University Grants Commission did not agree to sanction the necessary funds for it, instead the M.B.A. course was allowed to function as a Department under the Faculty of Commerce. 10. Under the Ordinances framed under the erstwhile Allahabad University Act, the M.B.A. is shown as a Department under the Faculty of Commerce. The same situation has continued even after the enforcement of the 1973 Act. A Committee appointed by the University Grants Commission visited the University somewhere in the year 1975-76 to assess the development work of the University during the Fifth Plan period. On the report of the Sub-Committee, the Deputy Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi, addressed a letter dated 1-9-1970 to the Registrar of the University giving details of the recommendations and observations made by the Visiting Committee and also sanction of the University Grants Commission. In that letter also, Department of Commerce and Business Administration was dealt with under the Faculty of Commerce. The letter deals with the requirement of M.B.A. course which was being maintained as a Department of the University. In that letter also, Department of Commerce and Business Administration was dealt with under the Faculty of Commerce. The letter deals with the requirement of M.B.A. course which was being maintained as a Department of the University. Since the University's proposal for a separate institute was not accepted by the University Grants Commission, the University decided to continue this course of study under the Faculty of Commerce as would appear from the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Commerce dated 3rd November, 1971. The Faculty Board considered the recommendation of the Board of Studies in Commerce and resolved that the Department of Commerce be named as the Department of Commerce and Business Administration, and recommendations for making suitable amendments in the Statutes were made. On 10th January, 1962 the Academic Council resolved that the Department of Commerce be named as Department of Commerce and Business Administration. Again the Executive Council of the University vide its resolution dated 3-2-1962 amended Clause 80 (c)(i) of the Statutes changing the Department of Commerce as the Department of Commerce and Business Administration. These documents contain positive evidence to show that no institute as contemplated by the Act was ever established by the University, instead the M.B.A. course of study has all along been continued under the Department of Commerce and Business Administration under the Faculty of Commerce. 11. After the conclusion of the hearing, we reserved the judgment, and thereafter an application was made on behalf of the petitioners for bringing on record two documents in support of their contention that Motilal Nehru Institute of Research and Business Administration is an institute as contemplated by the Act. One of these documents is a writing pad of Dr. A.N. Agarwala, who described himself as Dean and Director of the Institute. The second document is a notice purported to have been issued by the office assistant informing the students that Dr. J.S. Mathur will not take classes. The seal put on this document mentions Motilal Nehru Institute of Research and Business Administration, University of Allahabad. On the basis of these documents it was emphasised that M.B.A. course is not under a Department of the University, instead it is conducted and managed by an independent institute as contemplated by the Act. We are unable to accept this contention. The seal put on this document mentions Motilal Nehru Institute of Research and Business Administration, University of Allahabad. On the basis of these documents it was emphasised that M.B.A. course is not under a Department of the University, instead it is conducted and managed by an independent institute as contemplated by the Act. We are unable to accept this contention. As noted earlier, the institute as contemplated by the Act is a separate unit maintained by the University which has a Director who is a member of the Academic Council. The minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council and the provisions contained in the Ordinances of the University leave no room for any doubt that the Moti Lal Nehru Institute of Research and Business Administration is not an institute as contemplated by the Act, instead it has all along been a part of the Commerce Department under the Faculty of Commerce. The use of the letter head or stamp is not sufficient to confer the character of an institute as contemplated by the Act. Since Motilal Nehru Institute of Research and Business Administration is not an institute as contemplated by the Act, the Admissions Committee had no authority to nominate a person or a sub-committee to make admission to the M.B.A. course and the Head of the Department as authorised by the Ordinance was competent to hold the test and to make the admission. 12. Learned counsel then urged that a large number of students appeared at the written test. The answer books of all those candidates could not be evaluated within a short time. In the counter affidavit filed by Dr. B.N. Asthana, it has been stated that the total number of candidates who actually appeared was 445 and only 178 answer books had to be examined in all the four papers. He has further asserted that of the four written tests three were absolutely objective tests and the process which was followed was that each candidate was supplied answer sheet and he was given a question paper. The question paper contained four alternative answers to each question marked A, B, C and D. In the answer sheet against the question columns A, B, C and D contained various circles and the candidates were required to blacken the circle which he considered appropriate. Only one alternative out of the four contained the correct answer. The question paper contained four alternative answers to each question marked A, B, C and D. In the answer sheet against the question columns A, B, C and D contained various circles and the candidates were required to blacken the circle which he considered appropriate. Only one alternative out of the four contained the correct answer. The examiners had cut out stencil in accordance with the answers formulated by them. The examiner had to put the stencil on the answer sheet and count the number of black dots and multiply the same with the number of marks assigned to each question. This process took 2 to 3 minutes for evaluating one answer sheet. He has further asserted that there were three examiners in each paper and they could very easily examine the entire answer sheets in about 8 to 9 hours. The answer books were examined and tabulation of marks was done carefully in an objective manner. During the course of arguments the answer sheets and the stencils both were produced before us to demonstrate the process. On a perusal of the same we were fully satisfied that the answers given by the candidates were almost mechanical and it could not take long time in evaluating the answers of a candidate. 13. It was then urged that the petitioners were not called for oral interview, although they were entitled to appear at the interview. On behalf of the respondents it is urged that the examination was divided into two parts, written and oral. Those candidates who were selected on the basis of marks in the written test were called for interview. The Head of the Department who was competent authority had decided that candidates to the extent of two and a half times of the number of seats that were available should be called for oral test. Since 445 candidates had appeared at the examination 75 candidates in the order of merit on the basis of their marks in the written test and past academic record, had been called for oral interview but since candidates at Nos. 75 and 76 had secured equal number of marks the Head of the Department considered it reasonable to call the first 76 candidates for the oral test. Mohan Lal Jadwani and Sujai Banerji were the last two candidates at SI. Nos. 75 and 76 had secured equal number of marks the Head of the Department considered it reasonable to call the first 76 candidates for the oral test. Mohan Lal Jadwani and Sujai Banerji were the last two candidates at SI. Nos. 75 and 76 who had qualified for being called for oral test, each of them had obtained 396 marks, whereas the petitioners had obtained marks in the following manner. 1. Pradeep Tripathi Marks in written test and academic record 358 2. V.K. Chandola -do- 386 3. Kuldip Singh -do- 394 4. Arun Kumar Ganguly -do- 347 The above figures would show that the last candidate who had been called for oral interview had obtained 396 marks whereas none of the petitioners had obtained 396 marks. In the circumstances the petitioners were not entitled to appear at the oral test and their grievance in this respect is wholly misconceived. 14. Learned counsel then asserted that the petitioners academic record was very good and they were superior in every respect to those who had been selected for admission to M.B.A. course. We do not find any merit in the contention. As noted earlier the petitioners failed to qualify for being called to appear at the oral test. Out of 76 candidates who appeared at the oral test only 30 candidates were selected. Syed Asif Ali whose name was at SI. No. 30 was the last candidate who had obtained 519 marks. He had obtained 414 marks in the written test and academic record. None of these petitioners had obtained better marks than him and as such their claim that they were better suited for admission is wholly misconceived. 15. Learned counsel then urged that the answer books for the written test contained a column for filling the roll number by candidates allotted to them and it did not contain any column for writing his name, but at the time of written test it was announced that the candidates should also write their names in the answer books. This was done with a purpose so that the candidates, Dr. B.N. Asthana had predetermined to admit, should be identified. In para 8 of his counter-affidavit. Dr. Asthana has himself denied these allegations. According to him the procedure which was followed for coding the roll number of candidates was the same as was followed in earlier years and there was no change. B.N. Asthana had predetermined to admit, should be identified. In para 8 of his counter-affidavit. Dr. Asthana has himself denied these allegations. According to him the procedure which was followed for coding the roll number of candidates was the same as was followed in earlier years and there was no change. Each answer sheet was in two portions divided by a perforated line. The upper portion required the candidate to fill roll number in words and figures. In order to avoid any mistake candidates were asked to write their names also on the top of the sheet which contained a column for code number which was to be assigned by the coders subsequently. After the written test was over the answer sheets were collected from the candidates and were sent to Coders who assigned a code number to each and every candidate and detached the upper portion of the answer sheet which contained the name of the candidate, and thereafter they mentioned the code number in the lower portion of the answer book. The upper portion so detached remained with the coders. After the answer books were examined the examiner prepared the mark sheets according to code numbers and thereafter they were sent to the coders who verified the same with the upper portion of the answer sheet. Thereafter, marks were tabulated in the register from which merit list was prepared. The procedure as described in the affidavit of Dr. B.N. Asthana leaves no room for any suspicion that the names of the candidates were directed to be mentioned in the answer books with some ulterior motive. The petitioner's allegation is wholly misconceived. 16. The petitioners appeared at the written test. They failed to qualify for the oral test. The selection was made in a fair and proper manner. No discrimination was practised against the petitioners and none of their legal rights have been violated. The petitioners have no legal right to claim admission as of right. The process of selection for making the admission was fair and reasonable. The petitioners were considered but they failed to obtain higher marks than those who have been admitted and as such they are not entitled to any relief. The allegations regarding irregularities at the selection are devoid of any merit. 17. In the result we find no merit in the petition. The petitioners were considered but they failed to obtain higher marks than those who have been admitted and as such they are not entitled to any relief. The allegations regarding irregularities at the selection are devoid of any merit. 17. In the result we find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed, but we find no order as to costs.