Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 119 (CAL)

Anindya Kumar v. .

1992-03-16

HARIDAS DAS

body1992
JUDGMENT These two writ petition are taken up together for hearing. 2. The writ petitioners received their education in Higher Secondary Course as per rules, regulations and syllabus prescribed by the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi and passed the Senior School Certificate Examination (open school) held by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, according to the syllabus so prescribed. 3. The petitioners were admitted to the First Year Class in the Degree Course Commerce or in Arts, as the case may be, Bhowanipore Education Society College, Calcutta, Jigesh Chandra College, Calcutta And Vidyasagar Collage, Calcutta the said collages being affiliated to the University of Calcutta, the respondent No. 1 herein. By an order dated August 26/27, 1991 (Annexure ‘D’) addressed to the Principal, Bhowanipore Education Society Collage, the Assistant Register of the Calcutta University informed the Principal that the prayers made by 23 students inclusive of some of the writ petitioners who passed the Senior Secondary School Certificate (open school) Examination, for sanction of their admission to the First Year Calcutta of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. Degree ourse under the Calcutta University could not be allowed as per existing rules. The petitioner contended that they satisfied all the conditions of eligibility for admission to the First Year Class of the Degree courses in terms of the Notification No. MIG/2785/E9 (Cir.) dated June 26, 1990 issued by the Calcutta University and they were duly admitted to the First Year Class of the Degree Courses in the respective Collages, They prosecuted their studies and they submitted Migration Certificate. But in view of the decision of the Calcutta University as communicated to the Principal of Bhowanipore Education Society College in letter dated August 26/27, 1991, the petitioners, thought they qualified the Collage test, were not allowed to fill up the forms and to deposit the requisite fees to sit for the ensuring University Examination schedule to commence on and from March 17, 1992. 4. Challenging the decision of the Calcutta University communicated in the letter, Annexure ‘D’, as arbitrary and illegal, the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 not to give effect to the decision communicated in the letter. Annexure ‘D’ and to allow the petitioner to sit for the examination after granting them Admit Card and permit them to deposit fees for the said examination. 5. 1 to 4 not to give effect to the decision communicated in the letter. Annexure ‘D’ and to allow the petitioner to sit for the examination after granting them Admit Card and permit them to deposit fees for the said examination. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their affidavit in opposition have contended that as the Senior School Certificate (Open School) Examination held by the Central Board of Secondary Education has not been recognised as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2-course) conducted by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education, West Bengal, the petitioners, as per regulations of the Calcutta University were ineligible for admission to the First Year Degree Course or to prosecute studies in any college affiliated to the University of Calcutta. 6. Mr. Amar Nath Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has pointed out that the Central Government sanctioned the establishment of the Association of Indian Universities and the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi conducted the aforesaid Examination in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the said Association of Indian Universities. Mr. Banerjee has urged that the petitioner passed the Examination in five approved subjects, each subject carrying a minimum 100 marks as full marks and as such the petitioners satisfied all the conditions as are required to be satisfied by the students from other Board seeking admission to the 1st Year Degree Courses in terms of the aforesaid Notification dated June 26, 1990, It is accordingly submitted that the decision of the Calcutta University refusing to sanction admission of the writ petitioners and to permit them to sit for the examination is arbitrary and illegal. 7. Mr. A.P. Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, has with reference to the provisions of the Calcutta University Act and the Regulations, contended that the petitioners being ineligible for the admission to the First Year Degree Course, cannot claim that their admission in the colleges should be sanctioned by the Calcutta University. 8. The question for consideration is whether the petitioners are eligible for admission to the First Year Degree Courses in any college affiliated to the Calcutta University. 8. The question for consideration is whether the petitioners are eligible for admission to the First Year Degree Courses in any college affiliated to the Calcutta University. Section 22 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 has vested the Syndicate of the University with certain powers and duties to prescribe and collects feel or charges for the registration of students and their admission to courses of studies organized by the University for holding examination, for the grant of degrees, diplomas and certificates and for other like purposes Section 56(2)(b) of the said Act provides that the Syndicate may delegate any of its powers or duties to a committee constituted from among its own members. It appears that the power of dealing with matters relating to equivalence of examination and eligibility of the students for admission to different courses of studies have been delegated to the equivalence committee. 9. From the Annexure ‘A’ to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 it will appear that on December 14, 1990 the equivalence committee adoptee a restitution where by the Senior School Certificate (Open School) Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, has not recognised as equivalent to the 12 years Higher Secondary Examination of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education for the purpose of admission to the First Year Degree Class in a college under the Calcutta University. It further appears that the matter was again reconsidered by the equivalence committee and by a resolution adopted on February 13, 1991 the committee decided to adhere to the earlier decision in the matter. If will therefore appear that the equivalence committee did not recognise and for that matter the Calcutta University did not recognise the Senior School Certificate (Open School) Examination held by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2 Course) conduced by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education for the purpose of admission to the Degree Course under the Calcutta University. 10. Regulation 1 of the Regulations for the New Degree Courses for B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. 10. Regulation 1 of the Regulations for the New Degree Courses for B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. Examinations from the Session 1978-79 onwards reads as follows : “A candidate may be admitted to the Pass Course and Part I of Honours Course Examination provided he has prosecuted a regular course of study for not less than two academical years in a college or collages affiliated to the University in the subjects which the candidate takes up after passing the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2 course) conducted by the Council for Higher Secondary Education, West Bengal, or an equivalent examination recognized as such (emphasized by me) by the university in five recognised subjects........”. It will therefore appear that eligibility for admission of students from other Boards after passing a particular Examination to the First Year Degree Course of the University of Calcutta depends upon the recognition of such examination by the University of Calcutta as equivalent to the Higher Secondary, Examination (10+2 Course) conducted by the Council for Higher Secondary Education, West Bengal. 11. The writ petitioners have relied upon the Notification dated June 26, 1990 (Annexure 'E') issued by the University of Calcutta for the guidance of the heads of all colleges/Institution under the University of Calcutta regarding the eligibility of students for admission to the B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. Courses. If will appear from the instruction contained in the said Notification that it has been clearly specified therein that the students coming from different Indian Universities/Boards/Councils after passing the H.S. (10+2) examination or an examination considered equivalent thereto will be eligible for admission to the First Year Degree Course. Therefore, the instructions which are contained in the aforesaid Notification are, in fact, in compliance with the statutory provision as contained in Regulation (1) quoted above. It cannot therefore be argued that there is any instruction in the aforesaid notification that the Secondary Examination which a student passed from other Board or Council need not be recognised by the Calcutta University as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Council for Higher Secondary, Examination, West Bengal, for the purpose of eligibility for admission to the First Year Degree Course in a College affiliated to the University of Calcutta. Another circular issued by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education on March 23, 1991 (Annexure 'G') was also relied upon by the writ petitioners. Another circular issued by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education on March 23, 1991 (Annexure 'G') was also relied upon by the writ petitioners. But that circular is wholly irrelevant since it only relates to eligibility of students passing Class-X Examination under Open School System for admission to Class XI of (10+2 Course) Examination conducted by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. 12. From what has been stated above it will therefore appear that the writ petitioners who passed the Senior School Certificate (Open School) Examination are ineligible for admission to the First Year Degree Course in any college affiliated to the Calcutta University or to prosecute their studies in such colleges affiliated to the Calcutta University. 13. In the case of (1) Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and Another reported in AIR 1986 SC at page 1448, the question arose whether the students passing Higher Secondary Examination (11 Class) conducted by the Secondary Education, Rajasthan, were ineligible for admission to the Engineering Course under the Karnataka University. In that case, the qualification for such admission was that the candidate must have passed the two-year Pre-University examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it and so on. The Supreme Court held : “It is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any ex-parties. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the Standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should not disturb the decision taken by the University”. 14. On a consideration of the legal provision it is therefore clear that the writ petitioners are ineligible for admission to the First Year Degree Course in any College affiliated to the University of Calcutta or to prosecute their studies in such college since the examination which they passed has not been recognised as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Education conducted by the Writ Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education by the Calcutta University. 15. A submission has been made on behalf of the writ petitioners that the petitioners were not responsible for this unfortunate situation the collage authority admitted them to the First Year Class the Degree Course and they were allowed to prosecute their studies and they did so for a period of two years or so. It is accordingly submitted that it will practically bring to an end the future prospect of the lives of the students if they are not permitted to continue the studies and to sit for the ensuing examination. It is accordingly submitted that at-least the petitioners should be allowed to sit for the examination and to continue their studies. I am afraid, such request cannot be acceded to. To direct the University to approve the admission of the petitioners in the 1st Year class of the degree course even though they are ineligible for such admission and to permit them to sit for the examination will amount to directing the University to violate the law and the Statutory Provisions. 16. In the case reported in (2) 1986 (2) SCC Page 667, A.P. Christians Medical Educations Society v. Govt. of A.P. a request for protection of the interest of the students of MBBS Course of an Institution was made when it was found that neither the State Government granted permission to the establishment of the Medical College nor the University granted affiliation to the institution. The Supreme Court observed that any direction of the nature would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Ace and the regulations of the University and as such the University cannot be directed to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence. 17. Having given my anxious consideration, I am of the view that the writ petitioners have no case at all and as such both the writ petitions stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Let Xerox copy of this order be given to the parties on usual terms and conditions. This judgment will govern both the writ petitions.