Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 157 (HP)

ROHIT SHARMA v. H. P. UNIVERSITY

2001-07-20

C.K.THAKKER, K.C.SOOD

body2001
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—We propose to dispose of these two writ petitions by this judgment as the questions involved in both the writ petitions are same and arise out of similar action of the respondent H.P. University (University for short). 2. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, facts from Rohit Sharmas petition may be noticed: 3. The respondent-University advertised and published a Brochure "Hand Book of Information" for admissions to the Course of B.Ed, for the Session 2000-2001. The application forms were to be submitted on or before April 17, 2000. The entrance test was to be held on May 28, 2000. The results were to be declared on July 1, 2000. The counseling, according to the Brochure, was to take place from July 15, 2000 to July 19, 2000. The case of the petitioner(s) is : 4. Applications for admission to the B.Ed. Course were invited from the candidates who had passed their graduation with 45% marks or above (in case of candidates from Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe categories, 40% or above). The academic eligibility for candidates from non-medical category was B.Sc. pass course with physics, Chemistry and Mathematics OR B.Sc. Honours in Physics with Chemistry and Mathematics as subsidiary subjects OR B.Sc. Honours in Chemistry with Physics and Mathematics as subsidiary subject OR B.Sc. pass course with physics/Chemistry, Mathematics and one of the vocational subjects (emphasis supplied). Appendix-I of the Brochure (Ann. PP) details the list of vocational Subjects. "Electronic Science" finds mention at Sr. No. 36 of the Appendix-I. 5. Both the petitioners herein, applied for the admission to the B.Ed. Course (Non-Medical Group) under the heading "B.Sc. pass course with Physics/Chemistry and Mathematics with "Electronic Science" as vocational subject. 6. Rohit Sharma sought admission to the course under the category of ward of Ex-serviceman (WES). 7. It is the case of this petitioner that though no specific quota was mentioned for this category in the Handbook of Information, however, to his knowledge, fourteen seats were reserved for the candidates belonging to the category of WES. 8. The petitioners appeared in the written test and qualified the same. They were called for counseling for June 29, 2000 itself. The final result was declared on July 26, 2000 which was published in the Newspaper. The petitioners were declared successful having secured 77 marks. 8. The petitioners appeared in the written test and qualified the same. They were called for counseling for June 29, 2000 itself. The final result was declared on July 26, 2000 which was published in the Newspaper. The petitioners were declared successful having secured 77 marks. Successful candidates, including petitioners, were required to report in the Government Education Institution, Dharamshala on or before July 31, 2000 alongwith all their "basic certificates/testimonials. 9. According to the petitioners, they reported with the Government College of Teachers Education, Dharamshala on July 31, 2000 alongwith the requisite certificates/testimonials but were told by the authorities that their candidature stands rejected without disclosing them the reasons. 10. The petitioners Rohit Sharma and Vikas Jain approached the University on August 1, 2000 and August 16, 2000, respectively, and made a representation(s), in writing, that the Principal of the concerned College at Dharamshala may be directed to admit the petitioners as they had been selected for admission to the B.Ed. Course. A note was appended on the representation filed by the petitioner Rohit Sharma to the effect that his application form was rejected for the reasons: "(i) WES Certificate was not appropriate; (ii) Electronics was not in the list of Vocational subjects according to the list of Vocational subjects according to the list in the HBI, page 17. It may please be clarified that Electronics may be considered as Electronic Science. If it is so, the candidate may be considered under payment seats." 11. This note was given by Chairman of the Department of Education and addressed to the Dean of Studies. The Dean of Studies of the H.P. University clarified by his note "Electronics" may be considered as "Electronic Science" (Annexure-PF). 12. To the similar effect was the note appended by the Dean of Studies on the representation of Vikas Jain which reads: 13. "Electronics may be treated as electronic science No. 36 in vocational subjects". 14. The petitioners, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Dean of Studies, were not given admission. The petitioners filed writ petitions in this Court (CWP Nos. 12. To the similar effect was the note appended by the Dean of Studies on the representation of Vikas Jain which reads: 13. "Electronics may be treated as electronic science No. 36 in vocational subjects". 14. The petitioners, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Dean of Studies, were not given admission. The petitioners filed writ petitions in this Court (CWP Nos. 556 of 2000 and 708 of 2000) on similar grounds which were disposed of in following terms : "In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to consider as to whether the subject of Electronics can be said to be Electronic Science or not. The Equivalence Committee will decide the question keeping in mind the "so called opinion" expressed by the Dean of Studies of the Himachal Pradesh University as reflected in Annexure PF, translation of which is at Annexure PF/1 (below application of the petitioner dated 1st August, 2000). It is for the Committee to decide the point and it should not be understood that this Court has expressed any opinion one way or the other. Such decision will be taken by the Committee as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks. It is open to the petitioner to produce relevant and necessary record, so as to enable the Equivalence Committee to take appropriate decision. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the final decision of the Committee, it is open to him to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and the disposal of this petition will not come in his way. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs." 15. The petitioners in terms of the directions noticed above, submitted the Syllabus of the Guru Nanak Dev, Delhi and Kurukshetra Universities in the subject of "Electronics" for consideration of the Equivalence Committee". 16. The matter was referred to the Dean Committee /Equivalence Committee alongwith the syllabus of the Universities submitted by the petitioners in the subject of "Electronics". 17. The respondent-University by communication dated December 11, 2000 (Annexure-PO in CWP No. 995 of 2000 and Annexure P7 in CWP No. 14 of 2000) informed the petitioners that they have not been found eligible as "the Academic Branch after checking their records informed that the syllabi of Electronics or Electronic Science was not available with the University". 17. The respondent-University by communication dated December 11, 2000 (Annexure-PO in CWP No. 995 of 2000 and Annexure P7 in CWP No. 14 of 2000) informed the petitioners that they have not been found eligible as "the Academic Branch after checking their records informed that the syllabi of Electronics or Electronic Science was not available with the University". Annexures PO and P7 read: "Department of Education, H.P. University, Shimla-5. Dated : 11.12.2K. From : The Chairman, Department of Education, H.P. University, Shimla-5. To 1. Mr. Rohit Sharma, S/o Sh. Jagdish Ram Sharma, Up Mahal Dhalwari, Dehalwan, Village Duhalwaiwala, Sub Tehsil Bharwain, District Una, H.P. 2. Mr Vikas Jain S/o Sh. Surender Jain, R/O Ward No. 6, Jain Mohalla, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. Subject : B.Ed. Admission. Dear The final decision taken by the Deans Committee meeting held on 30.11.2000 vide Item No. 1 under any other item is as under: "In view of the directions passed by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CWP Nos. 556/2000 and 708/ 2000 the matter was earlier considered by the Deans Committee/Equivalence Committee in its meeting held on 18.10.2000. The matter could not be decided in that meeting due to lack of information concerned in the academic branch of the University or guidelines of the UGC, to establish the equivalence of these two courses. However, the Committee decided that the Chairman, Deans Committee should procure information /guidelines, if any from UGC for the equivalence of these two courses. Accordingly, the UGC was approached through a letter. Thereafter a reminder was sent through fax to supply the information/ guidelines on the subject under reference. But there was no response received from the University Grants Commission, The Academic Branch of the University was also requested to supply the syllabi of Electronics/Electric Science as one of the elective subjects at B.Sc. level under non-medical stream, for comparison with the syllabi of Electronics of Kurukshetra University alongwith that of GNDU and Delhi University supplied by the candidate, from where the candidates /petitioners have passed B.Sc. with Electronics subject. The Academic Branch after checking their records informed that the syllabi of Electronics or Electronic Science was not available with them. The Chairman of the Deans Equivalence Committee apprised the members about the latest position in this regard, which after detailed deliberation, decided that these two courses cannot be treated as equivalent to each other". with Electronics subject. The Academic Branch after checking their records informed that the syllabi of Electronics or Electronic Science was not available with them. The Chairman of the Deans Equivalence Committee apprised the members about the latest position in this regard, which after detailed deliberation, decided that these two courses cannot be treated as equivalent to each other". Hence, you are not found eligible and your case for admission to B.Ed. Course cannot be considered. Yours sincerely, Sd/- Chairman, Department of Education. Copy to : 1. Sh. S.S. Mittal, Legal Advisor of H.R University, H.R High Court, Shimla". 18. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed these writ petitions with a prayer to issue appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents after quashing the decision of the University rejecting the candidate of the petitioners. 19. It is the case of the petitioners that their claim was rejected by the University Authorities without application of mind and without considering their case in its right perspective. According to the petitioners, the respondent University itself has prescribed "Electronics" as one of the vocational subject for being eligible to B.Ed. Course (Non-Medical group) and the University cannot turn around and reject the case of the petitioners on the ground that the University is not in a position to find syllabus of such a subject. It is pleaded that the attitude of the University authorities is mala fide. The candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the University simply because at one stage, they had rejected their candidature and wanted to stick to the decision which was taken by the University authorities unmindful of the fact situation. According to the petitioners, it is not disputed by the University that they passed their B.Sc. with one of the subjects as "Electronics" which is duly recognized by the University Grants Commission and therefore, the University is duty bound to treat the degree of the "Guru Nanak Dev University" equivalent to the degree of the H.R University. It is the further case of the petitioners that the University committed an error by mentioning the subject as "Electronic Science" instead of "Electronics" as no subject nomenclatured as "Electronic Science" is taught in any of the Universities in India. The only subject which is taught upto the B.Sc. level in the Indian Universities is "Electronics". It is the further case of the petitioners that the University committed an error by mentioning the subject as "Electronic Science" instead of "Electronics" as no subject nomenclatured as "Electronic Science" is taught in any of the Universities in India. The only subject which is taught upto the B.Sc. level in the Indian Universities is "Electronics". The Dean of Studies of the respondent University himself has opined that the subject "Electronic" is to be treated and understood as "Electronics Science". 20. The University through its Registrar and Chairman in the Department of Education (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) in their common return do not dispute the facts given by the petitioners in their respective writ petitions. 21. In para 12 of the return, in the case of Rohit Sharma, the University states that so far objection regarding WES certificate not being appropriate, was concerned, the same was dropped in view of the certificate produced by the petitioner. The stand of the University is that the petitioners passed their B.Sc. examination with "Electronics" as vocational subject which is not the same as Electronics Science as required under the Hand Book of Information. It is the further case of the University that the opinion of the Dean of Studies to the effect that "Electronic" may be considered as "Electronics Science" cannot be considered as the decision of the University 22. According to the affidavit of the University, the matter, after directions made by this Court in CWP No. 556/2000, was considered by the Deans of Committee/Equivalence Committee" in its meeting held on 18.10.2000 and after due deliberation, came to the conclusion that "these two curses cannot be treated as equivalent of each other". 23. It may be noticed that respondents No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Rohit Sharmas petition, were also the candidates for admission to B.Ed. Course. These respondents though lower in merit, compared to the petitioner, were admitted to the Course and, therefore, have been joined by the petitioner. No relief is sought against them. 24. We have heard Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Mittal, learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 3. 25. The only question which survives for our consideration is whether the action of respondents No.1 to 3 in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for the B.Ed. R.K. Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Mittal, learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 3. 25. The only question which survives for our consideration is whether the action of respondents No.1 to 3 in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for the B.Ed. Course was illegal,»in justified and not in accordance with law. 26. The contention of Mr. Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the decision of the University in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners was illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The petitioner, it is contended, was eligible for consideration under Non-Medical group having passed B.Sc. pass course with physics, mathematics and Electronics, a vocational subject, as per Sr. No. 36, list of vocational subjects, App.1 (Annexure-PP). Now, one of the vocational subject mentioned at Sr. No. 36 in App. I, (Annexure-PP) is "Electronic Science". Mr. Gautam submits that the fact that the candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the University simply because it could not find the syllabus of the subject "Electronic Science" with its Academic Branch shows that the impugned decision of the University was arbitrary, without application of mind and bereft of objectivity. It is further contended that the petitioners produced syllabus of the subject "Electronics" as taught at B.Sc, level from three different Universities, namely, Kurukshetra, Delhi and Guru Nanak Dev Universities. University authorities, it is further submitted, could not point out, how the subject "Electronics" is different to the subject "Electronic Science". The other submission of Shri Gautam is that the nomenclature of the subject, taught at under-graduate level in the Universities in Northern India is "Electronics" and not "Electronic Science" as named in the Brochure of the University. Mr. Gautam, to strengthen his submission, drew our attention to the note of the Dean of Studies of the University who opined that "Electronics" may be considered as "Electronic Science" for the purpose of the admission of the petitioners to the Course. 27. Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for the University, on the other hand, contends that the matter was referred to the "Equivalence Committee" of the University which concluded that these two Courses cannot be treated as equivalent of each other. 27. Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for the University, on the other hand, contends that the matter was referred to the "Equivalence Committee" of the University which concluded that these two Courses cannot be treated as equivalent of each other. He further submitted that the opinion expressed by the Dean of Studies was his personal opinion and cannot be said to be the decision of the University. 28. As noticed earlier, this Court in CWP No. 556 of 2000, Rohit Sharma v. H.R University and CWP No. 708 of 2000, Vikas Jain v. H.P. University, while disposing of these writ petitions on September 28, 2000 and October 3, 2000, respectively, had directed the University to consider as to whether the subject of "Electronics" can be said to be "Electronics Science" or not. The "Equivalence Committee" was to decide the question keeping in mind the "so called opinion" expressed by the Dean of Studies of the H.P. University as reflected in Annexure-PF. Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court if they are aggrieved by the final decision of the Committee. Pursuant to these directions, the "Equivalence Committee", it appears, met on 30th November, 2000. The decision of the Committee is annexed as Annexure PO/P7 to the writ petitions. Perusal of proceedings of the Committee shows that the Committee met on October 18, 2000. However, the matter could not be decided for want of information from the Academic Branch of the University or guidelines of the University Grants Commission to establish the equivalence of these two Courses. The Equivalence Committee through its Chairman approached the University Grants Commission for information in this respect. However, there was no response from the University Grants Commission. The Academic Branch of the University was also unable to supply the syllabi of the subject "Electronics" or "Electronics Science" at B.Sc. level under non-medical stream. In fact, the Academic Branch informed the Equivalence Committee that such syllabi of the subject "Electronics" or "Electronic Science" was not available with it, though the petitioner supplied the syllabi of the subject of Electronics as taught in Kurukshetra, Guru Nanak Dev and Delhi Universities at B.Sc. level under non-medical stream. 29. level under non-medical stream. In fact, the Academic Branch informed the Equivalence Committee that such syllabi of the subject "Electronics" or "Electronic Science" was not available with it, though the petitioner supplied the syllabi of the subject of Electronics as taught in Kurukshetra, Guru Nanak Dev and Delhi Universities at B.Sc. level under non-medical stream. 29. It is apparent that the Equivalence Committee felt handicapped to decide the question of equivalence for the reason that syllabi of the "Electronic Science" was not available with the University and ultimately in desperation concluded that the two Courses could not be treated as equivalent to each other. It, thus, is clear that the candidature of the petitioners was rejected on the grounds: (a) the University Grants Commission failed to respond to the request of the Equivalence Committee for the guidelines if any issued by the University Grants Commission; (b) absence of any syllabi with the Academic Branch of the University in the subject of Electronics /Electronics Science. 30. In our view, the opinion of the Academic Council was not founded on either comparative study in the subjects of "Electronics" and/or "Electronic Science" as taught in various Universities at the level of B.Sc. or was based on intelligible difference between the subjects "Electronics" and "Electronics Science". The opinion is bereft of any rational. 31. The Brochure (Hand Book of Information) for admission to B.Ed. Course of the University for the Session 2000-2001, in para 4 of the Brochure, details the subject combination in Qualifying Examination. Para 4 reads: 4. SUBJECT COMBINATION IN QUALIFYING EXAMINATION. The candidate with the following subject combinations under different streams (i.e. Non-Medical, Medical and Arts) will only be eligible for admission to B.Ed. 4.1 Non-Medical Group. B.Sc Pass Course with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. OR B.Sc. Honours in Physics with Chemistry and Mathematics as subsidiary subjects. OR B.Sc. Honours in Chemistry with Physics and Mathematics as subsidiary subjects OR B.Sc. Honours in Mathematics with Physics and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects. OR B.Sc. Pass Course with Physics, Mathematics and one of the vocational subjects (Appendix-I) introduced by the UGC at the first degree level. OR B.Sc. Pass Course with Chemistry, Mathematics and one of the vocational subjects (Appendix-I) introduced by the UGC at first degree level. 4.2 xxx xxx xxx 4.3 xxx xxx xxx 32. Admittedly, both the petitioners applied under Non-Medical Group having passed B.Sc. OR B.Sc. Pass Course with Chemistry, Mathematics and one of the vocational subjects (Appendix-I) introduced by the UGC at first degree level. 4.2 xxx xxx xxx 4.3 xxx xxx xxx 32. Admittedly, both the petitioners applied under Non-Medical Group having passed B.Sc. with Physics, Mathematics and Electronics (Vocational subject). Now apart from the fact that the Dean of Studies of H.P. University recommended that the subject "Electronics" may be considered as "Electronic Science), there is a certificate from the Assistant Registrar, Examination, of the Guru Nanak Dev University (Ann. PQ) which certifies that Rohit Sharma had passed B.Sc. Ill (Electronics) under Roll No. 116705 held in April 1999 securing 1200 marks out of 2400 in second division. It is further certified that Rohit Sharma had offered English, Punjabi, Math, Physics and "Electronics". It is stated in the certificate that "Electronics" may please "be treated as Science subject" as Electronics subject comes under Science subject. The Certificate may be reproduced for convenience : "This is to certify that Rohit Sharma S/o Sh. Jagdish Ram Sharma has passed B.Sc. Ill (Electronics) under Roll No. 116705 held in April, 1999 securing 1200 marks out of 2400 in Second Division. He had offered English, Punjabi, Math, Physics and Electronics subject may please be treated as a Science subject. Electronics subject come under Science Subject. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Exams. II) For Registrar (seal)" Similarly, the petitioners have placed copy of the letters (Ann. PR in CWP No. 995 of 2000) and (Ann. P-4 in CWP No. 14 of 2001), from the Chairman, Electronics Science Department, of Kurukshetra University addressed to Dr. Satish Chand, Chairman, Department of Education, H.P. University, Shimla. The letter reads: "ELECTRONIC SCIENCE DEPARTMENT KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA-132 119. (HARYANA) SEAL Ref. No. ELS/2K/8643 CHAIRMAN Dated : 11.9.2K. To Dr Satish Chand, Chairman, Department of Education, H.P. University, Shimla. Dear Dr. Satish Chand, I have been approached by one of our ex-student of a College affiliated to this University Mr. Vikas Jain regarding his admission in B.Ed. Course in your University. In this regard, I am making the following observations. In our University at undergraduate level, we offer Electronics as the nomenclature rather than electronic Science for the students having subjects of Electronics at B.Sc. level. These students are eligible for admission to M.Sc. Electronic Science Course being run by this Department. Course in your University. In this regard, I am making the following observations. In our University at undergraduate level, we offer Electronics as the nomenclature rather than electronic Science for the students having subjects of Electronics at B.Sc. level. These students are eligible for admission to M.Sc. Electronic Science Course being run by this Department. So, we treat Electronics and Electronic Science as the same subject for all type of admissions in this University. Yours sincerely, Sd/- 11.9.2K Electronics Science Department Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra 132 119." 33. Perusal of these letters show that in the University of Kurukshetra, subject offered at under-graduate level is nomenclatured as "Electronics" and not "Electronic Science" at B.Sc. level. It is further stated in the letter (Ann. PA) that such students are eligible for admission to M.Sc. "Electronic Science" Course being run by the Department and the University treats "Electronics" and "Electronic Science" as "the same subject for all type of admissions in the University". 34. There is nothing on the record to show that subject nomenclatured as "Electronic Science" is taught in any of the Universities in India at Under-Graduate (B.Sc.) level. Such a subject, we are informed, is not taught even in the respondent University at Under-Graduate (B.Sc.) level in the Science or any other stream. In this background, in our view, the University was not justified in their decision that the subjects "Electronic Science" and "Electronics" cannot be treated as equivalent. The next contention of Shri Mittal that the opinion of the Dean of Studies was his individual opinion is not well founded. 35. Ordinance 27.2 of the University provides that the Dean of Studies will look after the Academic and Administrative matters of the University. Therefore, in our view, the opinion of the Dean of Studies that Electronics subject may be treated as equivalent to "Electronic Science", cannot be said to be beyond the scope of his duties and responsibilities as Dean of Studies. Ordinance 27.2 reads : "27.2. Subject to the provisions of the Act and Statues, the Dean of Studies will function under the overall control of the Vice-Chancellor and will look after the academic and administrative matters of the University." (Emphasis supplied) 36. Ordinance 27.2 reads : "27.2. Subject to the provisions of the Act and Statues, the Dean of Studies will function under the overall control of the Vice-Chancellor and will look after the academic and administrative matters of the University." (Emphasis supplied) 36. In "Me Graw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology" (4th Edition) at page-799, "Electronics" is defined to mean "the branch of science and technology relating to the conduction and control of electricity flowing through semiconducting materials or through vacuum or gases. Electronics is concerned with the study and applications of the motions of charge carriers (electrons, holes and ions) under the influence of externally applied voltage or current, or in relation to the incidence or production of radiant engery". Since the 1960s, the dominant segment of electronics has been that known as solid-state, which involves transistors and other semiconductor devices and assemblies." 37. Perusal of the definition shows that Electronics is one of the branches of Science and Technology. 38. The New Oxford Dictionary of English (defines "Electronics" as "the Branch of physics and technology concerned with the design of circuits using transistors and microchips, and with the behaviour and movement of electrons in a semiconductor, conductor vacuum". (Emphasis supplied) 39. The expression "Science" in the same dictionary is defined to mean "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject". "Science" is also defined to mean knowledge "obtained individually by study of facts, principles, causes, etc., (See : Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition West Publishing Co.). 40. In Webster, "Science" is defined to mean "a branch of study that is concerned with observation and classification of facts" (Websters Third New International Dictionary at page-2032). 41. In view of the definitions noticed above, "Electronics" and "Science" and in the absence of any definition in the Brochure (Hand Book of Information), or any Order, Statute or Ordinance of the University, the subject "Electronics" cannot but be a Science subject. The study in "Electronics", in our view, is the same as in "Electronic Science". 42. Merely because the University does not offer "Electronics" or "Electronic Science" at under-graduate (B.Sc.) level and it does not possess any syllabi nomenclatured as "Electronic Science" would not mean that the subject "Electronics" as taught in the Universities in the Northern India including University of Kurukshetra, is different to subject "Electronic Science". 43. 42. Merely because the University does not offer "Electronics" or "Electronic Science" at under-graduate (B.Sc.) level and it does not possess any syllabi nomenclatured as "Electronic Science" would not mean that the subject "Electronics" as taught in the Universities in the Northern India including University of Kurukshetra, is different to subject "Electronic Science". 43. We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned decision of the University that the subject "Electronics" and "Electronic Science" cannot be treated equivalent, is arbitrary, bereft of any objective assessment of the subject(s) and not based on any intelligible rationale. The impugned decision therefore is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 44. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referring to Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 253, urged that the respondent-University may be directed to grant admission to the petitioners in the Session 2001-2002 as the Session 2000-2001 is over. In Ritesh R. Sah, the petitioner was held to be entitled to be admitted on the basis of his merit but he was debarred from taking admission as admissions to Session 1995-96 in the State of Maharashtra were already over. In these circumstances, Their Lordships held: "Since the petitioner is a single applicant before us, we direct that the petitioner be admitted to any one of the Colleges where he can be so admitted to the MBBS Course where seat is still available, and if not, by increasing one seat in any one of the Colleges". 45. Mr. Gautam also, referred to Pradeep S. Melkunde and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2001 Bombay 96, in support of his contention. In Melkunde, the admissions granted by the respondent College in BHMS Degree Course for the first year 1997-98, 1998-99 or 1999-2000 were held to be illegal, without authority of law and void ab initio. The question then arose as to how the students admitted during the academic year, who have become victim of circumstances, could be compensated. Certain amounts of compensation were directed to be given to the students by the College Management as quantified by the Court. A question was also raised before the Court as to what would happen to the students admitted to the respondent College. Certain amounts of compensation were directed to be given to the students by the College Management as quantified by the Court. A question was also raised before the Court as to what would happen to the students admitted to the respondent College. The State Government favourably responded to the said problem and undertook to accommodate all the students in Virar Homeopathy College in the nearby vicinity in the same university This sensitivity and concern shown by the State Government was appreciated by the Court. In these circumstances, it was directed that State Government shall accommodate all the affected students off academic year 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 in the Homeopathy College at Virar or any other recognized Medical College in the same University in the new academic year 2000-2001. 46. In view of the fact that Academic Session 2000-2001 is over and admissions to the Academic Session 2001-2002 for the Course in B.Ed, are to take place shortly and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have already lost one year on account of the unreasonable and illegal action on the part of the University and for no fault of theirs, it will be fair and reasonable to direct the University to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically for admission to the B.Ed. Course (Non-Medical stream) for the Academic year 2001-2002. We accordingly allow the writ petitions and: (a) quash the impugned order of the University dated 11.12.2000 declaring the petitioners ineligible for admission to B.Ed. Course (Non-Medical Stream); (b) direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically for admission to the B.Ed. Course (Non-Medical Group) for the academic Session 2001-2002 subject to their fulfilling qualifications other than academic qualification; (c) direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay cost of Rupees 2,500 to each of the petitioners. CMP No. 1708/2000 in CWP No. 995/2000 AND CMP No. 24/2001 in CWP No. 14/2000 47. No order, in view of the orders passed in the main writ petitions. The applications are disposed of. Petition allowed.