Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 173 (KAR)

S. HARINATHA REDDY v. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

1989-06-02

H.G.BALAKRISHNA

body1989
BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is a student of M. V J. College of Engineering, Bangalore, affiliated to the Bangalore University, has sought a mandamus to continue the studies of the petitioner in the remaining 3 year course of annual scheme of B. E. Degree Examination and also for quashing the impugned memos dated 26-10-1987 besides the appended note in Annexures 'c' and 'd' ( 2 ) THE material facts are as follows: the petitioner joined the I Year B. E. Annual Scheme course in Industrial Production for the year 1986-87 in the month of August, 1986. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the I year Engineering Examination after an Admission Card was issued to the petitioner and he took the examination in all the papers. In September, 1987, the results of the examination were announced by the 1st respondent. However, the 2nd respondent notified the petitioner that his results would be announced later. On 26-10-1987, the petitioner received a communication by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the admission of the petitioner for I year B. E. Examination was not approved by the university for the reason that he had not secured 50% of marks in the I and II Intermediate Examination of Andhra Pradesh. According to the said communication dated 26-10-1987, the petitioner was admitted to the College on the basis of the fact that he had secured 50% of marks in the II year Intermediate Examination and, therefore, his results were not announced by the Registrar (Evaluation) because his admission was not approved by the University. In the note appended, it was mentioned as follows:-"harinath REDDY : SL. NO. 8 : industrial PRODUCTION he has passed intermediate examination from Andhra Pradesh and secured 46% of marks in PCM subjects. There is no reference about the caste in the admission statement, since he has not secured 50% of marks in PCM subjects. He is not eligible for admission to I Year b. E. degree course, as per the regulations of B. E. degree course of Bangalore university. Hence, he may be discharged from the College forthwith after giving suitable notice under intimation to this office. Sd/- Principal, m. V. J. College of Engineering, bangalore "hence, the petitioner is aggrieved. He is not eligible for admission to I Year b. E. degree course, as per the regulations of B. E. degree course of Bangalore university. Hence, he may be discharged from the College forthwith after giving suitable notice under intimation to this office. Sd/- Principal, m. V. J. College of Engineering, bangalore "hence, the petitioner is aggrieved. ( 3 ) THE only question for consideration is whether Annexures 'c' and 'd' deserve to be quashed for any legal infirmity and whether a mandamus ought to be issued to enable the petitioner to continue the remaining 3 course of Annual Scheme B. E. Examination. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Sri V. A. Mohan rangam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the 2nd respondent received all the necessary certificates and forwarded the same to the 1st respondent University in September, 1986. It is urged that the petitioner has studied and passed the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of intermediate Education, Hyderabad, consisting of a two year course and that a consolidated marks card was issued by the Board and that was submitted for the purpose of admission to the B. E. course for 1986-87. It is also submitted that the petitioner has put in one year course of study out of 4 years and the 1st respondent, after a lapse of 1 year and 2 months, has communicated the impugned order to the effect that his admission is not approved and that he is not eligible to prosecute studies in Engineering course. That, according to the petitioner, is illegal and unconstitutional because the respondent university had not only admitted the petitioner, but also permitted him to take the examination. ( 5 ) SRI M. N. Seshadri, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, has filed a comprehensive statement of objections. The substance of the counter is that the petitioner is an ineligible candidate for admission to B. E. degree course (annual scheme) since he has not secured the required percentage of marks in the qualifying examination which is the Intermediate Examination conducted by Board of intermediate Education, Hyderabad. The intermediate Examination is of 2 years duration and the petitioner secured 99 marks in optionals (Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics) out of maximum marks of 250 in paper-I and secured 178 marks out of the maximum of 350 in Paper-II. The intermediate Examination is of 2 years duration and the petitioner secured 99 marks in optionals (Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics) out of maximum marks of 250 in paper-I and secured 178 marks out of the maximum of 350 in Paper-II. The aggregate of marks of both the papers would be 277 marks secured out of the maximum of 600 and the percentage of marks in the optional subjects (P. C. M.) is 46% whereas the prescribed qualifying marks is 50% for eligibility for admission to B. E. degree course. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the 1st respondent, the admission to B. E. degree course (annual scheme) is governed by the Regulations which have been approved by the Chancellor and, according to Regulation l (a) "admission to the B. E. degree course is open to the students who have passed the two year p. U. C. of the P. U. C. Board of the State or any other examination considered as equivalent thereto by the Bangalore University with Physics, chemistry and Mathematics as combinations and with 50% marks in the aggregate of Physics, Chemistry and mathematics. In the case of S. C. /s. T. candidates, the minimum percentage of marks shall be 35% in the aggregate of Physics, chemistry and Mathematics". ( 7 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the 1st respondent that a candidate seeking admission to B. E. degree course, according to the regulations, should have secured 50% in the aggregate of P. C. M. of 2 years P. U. C. of the p. U. C. Board of the State or of any other examination considered as equivalent thereto by the Bangalore University. It is stated that, according to Regulation l (a), the Committee of the Academic Council, at its meeting held on 19-11-1985, has recommended as equivalent, of the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate education, Hyderabad. According to the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, the aggregate of optionals (P. C. M.) of both the years pertaining to Paper-I and Paper-II of intermediate Examination has to be taken into account and was taken into account to determine the eligibility of the petitioner and that the same practice is in vogue in the university to which the petitioner belonged in Andhra Pradesh. The recommendation of the Committee of the Academic Council of bangalore University was accepted by the academic Council at the meeting held on 27-12-1985 and the equivalent was decided upon in exercise of the powers conferred on the university by Regulation l (a ). It is contended that the Academic Council, under the karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter called 'the Act') which is empowered to make regulations prescribing equivalence of examinations and schemes of examinations and conditions on which the students are admitted to the examinations under Section 27 (c) (k) of the Act and further that Sections 39 (1) and (2) of the Act envisage that the Regulations framed by the academic Council by exercise of all or any of the powers contemplated under Section 27 may provide for recognition of examinations and degrees of other Universities as equivalent to the examinations and degrees of the Bangalore University and, therefore, the petitioner having secured only 46% marks which falls short of 4% of the qualifying minimum percentage of 50% of marks is not entitled to be admitted to the B. E. degree course. ( 8 ) ANOTHER significant disclosure in the counter filed by the 1st respondent is that the principals of all the Engineering Colleges were duly notified about the determination of equivalence made by the Academic Council in respect of Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate education, Hyderabad, through a circular dated 27-2-1986. ( 9 ) IT is contended by the 1st respondent that there is no estoppel against statute and it is open to the 1st respondent to raise objections as regards the eligibility or otherwise of the petitioner and that a candidate seeking admission is under a duty to know whether he is eligible for admission before he seeks admission. ( 10 ) FINALLY, it was urged that the petitioner is not entitled to any opportunity of hearing before he is discharged from the course on account of the fact that he suffers from initial ineligibility for admission itself. ( 11 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that the Regulations governing the prescription of equivalence are unconstitutional and illegal. In fact, the petitioner has not challenged the validity of any of the Regulations. ( 11 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that the Regulations governing the prescription of equivalence are unconstitutional and illegal. In fact, the petitioner has not challenged the validity of any of the Regulations. The Committee of the Academic Council was within its power to make recommendation of the equivalent to the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate education, Hyderabad, which it did at its meeting held on 19-11-1985. The Academic council of the Bangalore University was also within its power in accepting the recommendation of the Committee of the Academic council at its meeting held on 27-12-1985. The equivalence, obviously, was determined by exercise of the powers conferred on the university under Regulation l (a ). Under the act, it is the Academic Council which is empowered to make Regulations prescribing equivalence of examinations and schemes of examinations and conditions on which the students are admitted to the examinations under the provisions of Section 27 (c) and (k) of the Act In addition, the provisions of section 39 (1) and (2) of the Act re-inforce the statutory position that the Regulations framed by the Academic Council by exercise of all or any of the powers enumerated under section 27 of the Act may provide for recognition of examinations and degrees of other universities as equivalent to the examinations and degrees of the University. In these circumstances, the fixation of 50% of marks in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible for admission to the B. E. degree course has to be upheld. Since the Petitioner had secured only 46% marks in the qualifying examination, there can be hardly any doubt that he was ineligible for admission to the B. E. degree course. There is no merit in the argument that the decision taken by the 1st respondent and the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. On the other hand, I am of the view that the respondents have acted with jurisdiction and they have exercised powers which are conferred on them by statute. The petitioner has not made out any case of misfeasance or malfeasance or non-feasance. On the other hand, I am of the view that the respondents have acted with jurisdiction and they have exercised powers which are conferred on them by statute. The petitioner has not made out any case of misfeasance or malfeasance or non-feasance. ( 12 ) IT is a settled principle of law that there can be no estoppel against statute and a candidate who seeks admission to an academic course is deemed to be aware of the prescribed qualification and even if he is not aware, it may be said that either he ought to be aware of it or that he is presumed to be aware of it. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances and on the facts of the case, I am not convinced that there is any violation of principles of natural justice in the light of undisputed questions of fact that the petitioner did not possess the eligibility qualification for admission to the b. E. degree course and, either in law or otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled to an opportunity of hearing before he is discharged from the course. The inherent lack of qualification manifesting the ineligibility of the petitioner does not warrant a hearing before discharge. In fact, if the petitioner was aggrieved, it was always open to him to make representation against the impugned orders on receipt of Annexures 'c' and 'd'. The said annexures themselves could have been treated as show cause notices of discharge. At any rate, the fact is beyond dispute that the petitioner had secured only 46% marks in the qualifying examination and, therefore, was ineligible for admission to the B. E. degree course. ( 14 ) ONE more contention of the petitioner requires to be considered. The contention is that the annual scheme of study of the B. E. degree course of the petitioner is spread over for 4 years and it is only after a lapse of 1 year and 2 months that the 1st respondent has intimated the petitioner that his admission to the B/e. degree course is not approved and that he is not eligible to prosecute the Engineering course. This, according to the petitioner, is illegal and unconstitutional particularly since the respondent University had admitted the petitioner and permitted him to take the examination. This, according to the petitioner, is illegal and unconstitutional particularly since the respondent University had admitted the petitioner and permitted him to take the examination. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the 1st respondent invited my attention to the decision of this Court in Asgar Hussain v university of Bangalore, 1984 (1) Kar. L. J. 579, wherein a similar contention was raised relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in punjab Engineering College v Sanjay Gulati (AIR 1973 SC 580 ). It was held by this Court as follows:"11. It appears to me that the said consideration given by the Supreme Court in favour of the students who had been admitted by conducting a spot-test in violation of the rules and who had completed one or two semesters cannot be applied to cases where the students have been admitted to the course even though they were ineligible for admission. In other words, it certain students, who were eligible for admission to a course were admitted in preference to better meritted candidates and if such selection remain undisturbed for considerable time, the Court would decline to set aside their selection for the reasons that though their selection can be said to be contrary to rules of admission it cannot be said that they were ineligible, for admission. This is because, in the absence of a challenge to such selection before the Court by better meritted candidates, the selection of the admission less meritted candidates would remain valid and there would be no basis for cancelling the admission of such students. Even in a case where better meritted candidates challenged the selection of candidates with lesser merit, it would be open for the Court to decline to interfere on grounds of delay, laches, acquiscence on the part of the petitioning candidate or on other equitable grounds such as lapse of time and the like. But the cases of ineligible candidates whose selection is cancelled by the University stand entirely on a different footing for, the court is requested to set aside a valid cancellation of invalid admission and it is not open for the Court to do so. But the cases of ineligible candidates whose selection is cancelled by the University stand entirely on a different footing for, the court is requested to set aside a valid cancellation of invalid admission and it is not open for the Court to do so. The cases of the four petitioners, who are ineligible and still admitted are of this category and, therefore, there is no basis or justification to set aside the orders of the University (See : Order made in W. P. No. 8782 of 1983 and connected cases dated 5-10-1983 ). "there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that on account of passage of time, equity should be bestowed on the petitioner. ( 16 ) THIS is a gloring instance of administrative irresponsibility of the 2nd respondent in admitting an ineligible candidate to the B. E. degree course notwithstanding a circular dated 27-2-1986 (Annexure-Rl) issued to Principals of all the engineering Colleges in the State regarding the determination of equivalence by the academic Council in relation to Intermediate Examination conducted by the board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad. Greater sense of accountability is expected from Educational Institutions and such administrative lapses deserve to be dealt with seriously by the competent authorities. An onerous statutory obligation was cast on the 2nd respondent to ensure admission of only eligible candidates bearing in view the standards of education and the norms fixed by the University in exercise of the statutory powers. Defiance of the circular issued under Annexure-Rl by the 2nd respondent tantamounts to legation of legislative will. The 2nd respondent cannot afford to live in an island of its own with scant respect to the University Regulations and administrative fiats of the University which are binding on the 2nd respondent. ( 17 ) LOOKING from any perspective, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .