Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1705 (RAJ)

Miss Tripti Sharma v. University of Rajasthan

2001-10-15

S.K.KESHOTE

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is praying for direction to respondents to permit her to appear in the examination of Bachelor of Engineering 1st Year by way of submitting her enrollment form, depositing the enrolment fee being the student of respondent No. 3 which is affiliated to the respondent No. 1. 2. The second prayer made is to direct the respondents not to restrain the petitioner from attending the regular classes in the respondent No. 3 College. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner passed All India Senior School Certificate Examination, 1998 from the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. 4. Maharishi Arvind Institute of Engineering & Technology, Amba Bari Circle, Jaipur, the respondent No. 3 published an advertisement in the Rajasthan Patrika which is a admission notice and notified that the said Institute is approved by All India Council of Technical Education and affiliated to University of Rajasthan. 5. The petitioner submitted her form for admission in B.E. in Electronics and deposited Rs. 30,500/- against total fee of Rs. 60,000/- on 29.12.2000. She was given admission in B.E. 4 years course as a regular student in the respondent No. 3 institution. To this regard the petitioner submitted the document Annexure-5 the certificate of the admission notice given by the institution to her by respondent No. 3. After that admission the petitioner was regularly attending her classes. At the time of filling up of the forms of enrolment for the University of Rajasthan on 16.1.2001, the respondent No. 3 has restrained the petitioner from filling up that form and further restrained her to attend her classes. 6. The petitioner's father sent a letter to respondent No. 3 in this regard but nothing has been done in the matter. The petitioner sent a legal notice on 25.1.2001 by which the respondents were called upon to get fill the enrolment form of the petitioner otherwise she be compelled to approach the Court. This notice was not acknowledged by any of the respondent what to say to give any heed to the grievance made by her therein. The petitioner approached to this Court and filed a petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 708/2001. This writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the liberty was granted to the petitioner to file the fresh one. Hence this petition. 7. The petitioner approached to this Court and filed a petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 708/2001. This writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the liberty was granted to the petitioner to file the fresh one. Hence this petition. 7. On 4.4.2001 the petition has come up for preliminary hearing. On that day the Court was pleased to issue the notices to the respondents and the same were given Dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner for service of the same on the respondents. The notices were made returnable on 10.4.2001. From the order of the Court dated 10.4.2001 I find that the notices were served upon the respondents but none remain present in the Court. Accordingly the Court admitted the petition and notices of the admission were ordered to be issued to the respondents. The stay application was granted and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to regularly attend the classes of Bachelor of Engineering 1st years till the disposal of the writ petition. She was also allowed to take examination subject to the result of this petition. However, the result was directed not to be declared without further orders of the Court. Lateron Shri Pradeep Choudhary on behalf of Shri R.D. Rastogi appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 and prayer, for time to file the reply to the petition. The case was directed to be listed on 24.4.2001. The matter was placed on 25.4.2001 and it was adjourned to 27.4.2001 on 27.4.2001 the counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 put appearance and possibly the arguments would have been heard otherwise there would not have been occasion for the Court to order for listing of the case on 3.5.2001 for dictation of orders. On 4.5.2001 the Court ordered for listing the case on 8.5.2001 for further arguments. Thereafter it appears that the matter was not placed before 31.8.2001. On 31.8.2001 the matter was released from the part heard and directed to be listed before the regular bench. 8. It is not in dispute that the interim relief granted by the Court continues till day. The petitioner appeared in the examination during the pendency of this petition. 9. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not chosen to file the reply to the writ petition. The reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondent No. 1. 10. The respondent No. 1. The petitioner appeared in the examination during the pendency of this petition. 9. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not chosen to file the reply to the writ petition. The reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondent No. 1. 10. The respondent No. 1. has not disputed in the reply to the following facts : (1) that the respondent No. 3. College is affiliated to it. (2) that the college is approved by All India Council of Technical Education. (3) the petitioner was given admission by the respondent No. 3 to the B.E. 1st year against the paid seat. (4) the petitioner deposited Rs. 30, 500/- against the Rs. 60,000/- (5) the admission was given to the petitioner before the letter of the Technical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan dated 12.1.2001 addressed to the Controller of RPET, Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur under the caption 'in regard to the admission to B.E. courses against the vacant seats in the Engineering Colleges". (6) Its Ordinance 300A does not prescribe minimum marks in the senior secondary (10+2) to be secured by a candidate in Physics, Maths and Chemistry for the eligibility to the admission to B.E. course against the payment seats. (7) All India Council of Technical Education has also not prescribed the minimum marks to be secured by a candidate in the senior secondary (10 + 2) for eligibility against the payment seats. (8) In the advertisement inviting application by respondent No. 3 for admission against the vacant payment seats under the column of eligibility for girls/SC/ST the minimum marks in PCM subjects at 10+2 are not prescribed. (9) This admission notice was published before 12.1.2001. (10) The petitioner was given admission before 12.1.2001. The respondent No. 1 has not taken any action whatsoever against respondent No. 3 for giving this admission to the petitioner. The admissions are to be made against the vacant seats on payment basis from the candidates who are not appeared in the RPET though on the basis of merits. (11) Under the letter dated 12.1.2001 this was the one point programme given out. 11. From the document Annexure-2 the Advertisement for admission notice of the respondent No. 3 there is another admission notice to Engineering courses against paid seats at Arya College of Engineering & Information Technology, Jaipur. (11) Under the letter dated 12.1.2001 this was the one point programme given out. 11. From the document Annexure-2 the Advertisement for admission notice of the respondent No. 3 there is another admission notice to Engineering courses against paid seats at Arya College of Engineering & Information Technology, Jaipur. From this admission notices the eligibility for girls/SC/ST was to secure 33% marks in PCM (10+2). 12. The petitioner has not secured 47% marks in 10 + 2 examination in PCM. She passed in Physics in supplementary and total percentage of marks she secured in PCM was undisputedly 45%. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. From the facts of this case I am constrained to observe that the State of Rajasthan has no control on the admissions which are to be given in the private engineering colleges. The private colleges are giving the admissions to the students against the paid seats as per their own prescribed eligibility. This what it appears clearly from the document Annexure-2. There are two advertisements of admission notice to the vacant seats in the private engineering colleges at Jaipur itself and there the different eligibilities have been prescribed. On analysis of this document I find that for girls candidates one college prescribed eligibility of securing 33% marks in PCM (10+2) that is Arya College of Engineering & Information Technology, Jaipur. So far as the college of respondent No. 3 is concerned, it has not made any restriction of securing particularly % of marks in PCM (10+2) for girls/SC/ST candidates. This eligibility of securing 47% marks in PCM (10 + 2) restricted in both the colleges for general/OBC candidates. 15. The second glaring fact which comes out from this petition is that the Government of Rajasthan is also not strict on the eligibility and other rules of the admission to the BE. courses against the paid vacant seats in the private engineering colleges. From the document Annexure-1 filed by respondent No. 1 enclosed to its reply I find that the Government of Rajasthan in its technical education department is at its convenience relaxing the eligibility criteria for admission to the B.E. course against the paid vacant seats in the private colleges. This relaxation made is one time programme and I am constrained to observe that the possibility of giving this relaxation to favour its own favourites cannot be overruled. This relaxation made is one time programme and I am constrained to observe that the possibility of giving this relaxation to favour its own favourites cannot be overruled. This presumption, assumption and inference can be drawn from having a mere glance of this document where this relaxation was restricted only for the admission to this year. 16. In the matter of the admission to the B.E. courses in the facts aforestated the Government is making it easy for the private engineering colleges to make the Technical Education a business, trade or industry. 17. Be that as it may be. The University Ordinance 300A nowhere provides for them minimum percentage of the marks to be secured by a candidate in PCM (10+2) examination of a Board to make herself/himself eligible for admission against the paid seats in B.E. courses I failed to see how it can insist and rely upon this letter of the State Government. 18. The affiliation to the engineering colleges are being given by the University not only for conducting the examination but to maintain high standard of education and further to check that proper, adequate and sufficient arrangements are there to impart effective, real and substantive education in this technical course i.e. Bachelor of Engineering. It is unfortunate that the University instead of having an effective control over these private engineering institutions which are coming up like hot cake in the market with the aid and facility of the State of Rajasthan and to check that effective, real and substantive arrangements for imparting the education in Bachelor of Engineering course is there, it has come up with this technical plea in this petition. To have the high standard of technical education and to give good engineers to build the nation it has acted and exhibited itself as if it has no concerned, check or say whatsoever in the matter. From the document Annexure-2 filed by the petitioner which is not in dispute I find that these private engineering colleges have gone to the extent of giving the admissions to the students may be under the category of girls/SC/ST who secured 33% marks in PCM (10 +2). Possibly 33% marks may be minimum pass marks in 10+2 examination in all the Boards. Possibly 33% marks may be minimum pass marks in 10+2 examination in all the Boards. That shows the University has no control whatsoever or its connivance with these colleges so as to make it easy for them to admit the students against the paid seats irrespective of what percentage of marks they secured in PCM in 10+2 examination. 19. It is not the case of the respondent No. 2 that the admission given to the candidates in Arya College of Engineering & Information Technology, Jaipur in pursuance to the advertisement Annexure-2 have been objected by it. In the facts of this case I am satisfied though elaborately and in detail as and when occasion arises the matter may have to be examined that these private engineering colleges which are coming up in the State are nothing but shops for sale of the degrees of engineering. Further from these facts prima facie is also comes out that the education and moreso by and large the professional courses in the State becomes a trade, business or industry. 20. Similar is the case with the All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi who also have little care, bother or concern with the standard of the education in the engineering. This Council appears not to have prescribed any minimum percentage of marks in PCM in 10+2 examination to be secured by a candidates to make himself or herself eligible for admission to B.E. Course. This what I am stating on the basis of facts of this case that it is not the case of either of the respondents that the Council has prescribed any minimum percentage of marks in PCM (10+2) to be secured by the candidates for admission to the engineering course against the paid seats. The college respondent No. 3 herein is not opposing this writ petition and rightly so because it has given the admission to the petitioner knowing all these facts. It has also not filed reply to the petition. 21. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned it has also not thought it fit to contest this petition, it is also not opposing this petition. So far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, it is to be stated at the cost of repetition that it itself is responsible for all these admission made in the private engineering colleges. 21. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned it has also not thought it fit to contest this petition, it is also not opposing this petition. So far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, it is to be stated at the cost of repetition that it itself is responsible for all these admission made in the private engineering colleges. In case it would have really been concerned with the high standard of education in the engineering courses it would not have left this matter of prescribing eligibility for admission to B.E. Course to the State Government as what it is evident from the document Annexure-1 enclosed to the reply by the respondent No. 1 itself giving relaxation may be for the convenience for its favourites in the eligibility criteria from time to time. 22. Ordinance 300A of the University relates to the admission, examination, conduct of the course in Bachelor of Engineering (4 years) course but curiously enough in this Ordinance the University has not prescribed the minimum eligibility in the eventuality of the admission are to be given on the vacant paid seats in the private engineering colleges. The admissions which are given to the candidates against the vacant paid seats in the private engineering colleges are subject to the approval by the University but seldom it cares of these matters and it takes cognizance thereof at a stage when the candidates approach to the Court, the Court grants the stay order, the candidate continues with the studies and ultimately appeared in the examination also. To have the real, effective and purposeful control as well as to avoid all possible connivance and fraud in the admission of the candidates in the private engineering colleges strict procedure and rule are to be made and a candidate has to be admitted to this course only after its approval by it as well as the Controller of RPET. This is not scrupulously and strictly adhere to though demanded and expected from both the University and the Controller of RPET. Any illegal admission is made by a private engineering college against paid seat it has to be taken seriously and the University has all power to de-affiliate that college forthwith. This is not scrupulously and strictly adhere to though demanded and expected from both the University and the Controller of RPET. Any illegal admission is made by a private engineering college against paid seat it has to be taken seriously and the University has all power to de-affiliate that college forthwith. It is no more res Integra that if an affiliated college makes bungling, illegality or admission contrary to the rules or regulation of the University in the engineering or other courses it is always open and permissible to the University to de-affiliate the concerned private college. These actions are not being taken by the University and therefore it can reasonably be inferred that it is also interested to protect the college and the students who may not be other than kith and kin of its own officers and employees or kith and kin of influential persons in the society or politician or bureaucrats. This way what I feel that meritorious candidates are not get the admission in the engineering colleges. So not the merits but how to manage and secure admissions in the professional courses in State in colleges is the criteria, eligibility and real and effective merits. Where very foundation of the career starts with manuplation and manage merits how he can be expected to come up a true citizen and honest engineer. 23. The matter is to be considered with reference to the document Annexure-1 enclosed to the reply filed by respondent No. 1. It is true that the petitioner was not eligible for this admission to the B.E. course at the respondent No. 3 collegee. It is undisputed that this letter was issued much after the petitioner was given admission to this course. 24. In the Ordinance 300A or in the advertisement of admission notice to the vacant paid seats in the respondent No. 3 college it has nowhere been stated or required that the girls candidates are to secure minimum 47% marks in PCM subject at 10+2 examination. From this advertisement I find that for girls candidates they are to pass 10+2 in PCM subjects without there being any restriction of securing minimum percentage of marks in these subjects in the examination. 25. The State of Rajasthan or the University of Rajasthan or All India Council of Technical Education have not objected to this advertisement. From this advertisement I find that for girls candidates they are to pass 10+2 in PCM subjects without there being any restriction of securing minimum percentage of marks in these subjects in the examination. 25. The State of Rajasthan or the University of Rajasthan or All India Council of Technical Education have not objected to this advertisement. It is taken against the petitioner that she has not produced her marksheet along with the application form but it will not have any effect on her admission. Though in the ordinary course it is difficult to accept that the petitioner would not have submitted her marksheet of 10+2 examination along with the admission form. From the document Annexure-2. I find that in one college i.e. Arya College of Engineering & Information Technology, Jaipur the girls/SC/ST candidates are to secure 33% marks in PCM in 10+2 examination. So far as this college i.e. Maharishi Arvind Institute of Engineering & Technology, Jaipur is concerned securing of minimum percentage of marks was not required but it is not, significant for the reason that a candidate to pass this examination less than 33% marks cannot be an eligibility in any of the Board examination. Minimum 33% marks are to be obtained by a candidate to pass the 10+2 examination. 26. The petitioner has not played any fraud nor has conceded any fact from respondent No. 3. As per the advertisement of the respondent No. 3 she was eligible for admission to this BE. course against the paid seat and has been given the admission in the college. It is not the case of respondent No. 1 that any girl candidate who applied for admission against the paid seat in the respondent No. 3 college secured more percentage of marks in PCM (10+2) examination and she has not been given the admission. If that is a case then certainly the petitioner may not have any case. It is not the case of the respondents also. In these undisputed facts it is to be taken that the petitioner is a bonafide candidates and she got the admission accordingly. Secondly where the admission was subject to the approval by the University or by the Controller of RPET it is the duty of respondent No. 3 to take that course and for its this default, error, inaction or omission it is not fair, reasonable and justified to penalise the petitioner. Secondly where the admission was subject to the approval by the University or by the Controller of RPET it is the duty of respondent No. 3 to take that course and for its this default, error, inaction or omission it is not fair, reasonable and justified to penalise the petitioner. 27. Taking into consideration the fact that University has not prescribed any minimum percentage of marks to be secured by a candidate in PCM (10+2) examination, All India Council of Technology Education has also not prescribed any such eligibility and the Government of Rajasthan has prescribed this minimum eligibility much after the petitioner has been given the admission. I find that this is a case where the petitioner is not at fault and that too to the extent to oust her from the college when she has completed one year's course and has also appeared in the examination. This completion of the course may be under the Court's order but it is a fact on which there is no dispute. In the facts of this case meaning thereby though it may not be taken to be a precedent in other cases the petition is allowed. 28. In the facts of this case I am satisfied that the respondent are also interested that the petitioner is continued with the course and complete the same. Initially this Court has not granted any ex-parte interim relief or stay in favour of the petitioner. The Court has given notice to the respondents so as to afford an opportunity of hearing to them in the matter before any interim relief or stay is granted in favour of the petitioner. The respondents have been served but none put appearance in the Court on 10.4.2001 that is on the returnable date. When nobody has put appearance to oppose the stay petition the Court has granted the stay in favour of the petitioner. Then the counsel put appearance for respondent No. 1 and he has also not opposed the stay order but prayed for grant of time to file the reply to the writ petition. The time has been granted. 29. So far as other respondents are concerned though they have put the appearance but have not bothered to file the reply to the writ petition. The time has been granted. 29. So far as other respondents are concerned though they have put the appearance but have not bothered to file the reply to the writ petition. The respondent No. 3 may be the interested person but the respondent No. 2 has also not filed the reply nor put appearance on 10.4.2001. In these peculiar facts of this case otherwise also it is not the matter where the petitioner is to be discontinued with the course. 30. Moreover I find that the girls candidates may be given little bit relaxation in the minimum percentage of the marks to be secured in 10+2 examination in PCM for eligibility for admission against the vacant paid seats in the engineering colleges. 31. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and the same is allowed. If the result of the petitioner of B.E. 1st year examination is not declared so far the same be declared forthwith. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to complete her B.E. course at the respondent No. 3 college in accordance with the law. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.Writ petition allowed. *******