Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 133 (MP)

Gagan Singh Chandrawat v. State of M. P.

2001-02-09

A.M.SAPRE

body2001
Short Note The decision rendered in this petition shall also govern the disposal of one more petition being WP No. 1017/99 as in both these petitions common issue is involved. Petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India claiming following relief: "7(1) -- a writ, direction or order, mandate to the respondent No.3 and 4 to supply the final mark-lists to the petitioners and other students for B.P.Ed. (One year full time) course for the year 1997-98." Respondent No.4 Indore Professional Studies Academy, Indore, is an Educational. Institution imparting education in various degree and diploma courses. One such course is BP (Education)-- Bachelor of Physical Education. The petitioners are the students of this one year course who appeared in the examination conducted by the respondent No.4 for the academic session (97-98). On their successful completion in the examination, the respondent No.4 issued mark-sheet (annexure P-7) to each petitioner. Since in these mark-sheets the word 'Provisional' was mentioned and secondly, it was not issued by the University to which the respondent No.4 claimed to be affiliated i.e. respondent No.3, the petitioners requested for supply of final mark-sheet duly issued and certified by the University respondent No.3. Since this request of the petitioners was not acceded to and no final mark sheet as requested by the petitioners was issued either by respondent No.4 or by respondent No.3 i.e. University and hence this petition was filed by these students seeking the relief of Mandamus against the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 for issuance of final mark-sheet. The stand of Respondent No.3 i.e. University and respondent No.5 i.e. Regional Director National Council of Teachers Education is that respondent No.4 was not granted any affiliation by the University to this particular 1 year course i.e. BP (Education) nor any recognition was granted by respondent No. 5. In fact the case of University is that since there was no recognition obtained by the respondent No.4 for this course from Respondent No.5 which was the condition precedent for the grant of affiliation by the University and as a necessary consequence, in the absence of recognition granted by the respondent No.5, no affiliation was 'accorded by the University. In fact the case of University is that since there was no recognition obtained by the respondent No.4 for this course from Respondent No.5 which was the condition precedent for the grant of affiliation by the University and as a necessary consequence, in the absence of recognition granted by the respondent No.5, no affiliation was 'accorded by the University. The stand of respondent No.5 is that the respondent No.4 i.e. Indore Professional Studies Academy never made any application in the prescribed proforma to their institute to enable them to consider the case of grant of recognition and secondly the application initially made by the respondent No. 4 was not found in order and hence it was accordingly informed to respondent no. 4. The stand of respondent No.4 was that they having applied for recognition and also for affiliation started the course in anticipation that they will be accorded both recognition as also the affiliation for this particular BP (Education) course and it is essentially with these lawful expectation, the Institute not only invited applications from the students but also conducted the examination and eventually issued the provisional mark-sheets. Heard Shri V.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.C. Bagadia, Shri R. Johri. Shri S.S. Samvatsar, learned counsel and Shri P. Verma, Learned Government Advocate for respondents. Having heard the LC for the parties and having examined the entire undisputed factual scenario that has emerged in this case, one thing that becomes apparent is that respondent No.4 i.e. Indore Professional Studies Academy did not have either recognition to run the BP (Course) one year course nor did they have affiliation from the University before they advertised for this course. Indeed, this fact is now conceded by the IPC Academy. In all fairness, the IPS Academy i.e. the respondent No.4 should not have advertised for this course nor should have invited applications from the students at large to seek admission. All this exercise should have been done after obtaining due recognition from respondent No.5 followed by affiliation from respondent No.3 for this particular course. It was to say the least a misleading act on the part of IPS Academy to have come out openly in public and advertising (Annexure P-1) that they have obtained the affiliation for the course in question. It was to say the least a misleading act on the part of IPS Academy to have come out openly in public and advertising (Annexure P-1) that they have obtained the affiliation for the course in question. The question that now arises with this factual background is whether petitioners are entitled for the relief that they have claimed. In my opinion, in the absence of recognition and affiliation, the University cannot be compelled to issue mark-sheets to the petitioners. It being a settled principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in series of cases in such type of cases that once it is found as a fact that the Institute did not have any recognition/affiliation from the concern authority then no benefit or relief can be granted to students who prosecuted their studies in such Institution. In the words of Supreme Court, granting any order in favour of students would amount to misplaced sympathy and such sympathy should not be shown in favour of any such student. In the light of the settled legal position, I have no option but to dismiss these petitions. In other words this Court cannot compel the University to issue a mark-sheet to these students for the BP (Education) one year course in which these students appeared. They have to be satisfied with what they received from respondent No.4 i.e. Indore Professional Studies Academy Indore, the petitioners if they have any right available to claim money compensation by way of damages on account of incorrect representation by IPS Academy then, the remedy lies somewhere else in claiming damages. Before parting with this case, I am constrained rather compelled to comment upon the functioning of Indore Professional Studies Academy, Indore respondent No. 4 herein. Remedial measures in the form of prevention of such occurrence must be ensured by the State and their agencies to safeguard the interest of innocent students from such type of harassment. Registry is directed to send one copy of this order to education department of State of M.P. for necessary action in the light of the observations made supra and to ensure that such occurrence may not occur in future with any student. With these observations, these petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.