Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 224 (JK)

Rafia Durani v. University Of Kashmir

2001-09-24

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2001
1. Considered Admit. 2. Notice. 3. Mr. R. Bazaz takes notice at this post admission stage and submits that the respondents are not desirous to file reply or further pleadings and instead the objections already filed may be considered. As the counsel are agreed for final disposal of the Writ petition, therefore, are heard. 4. Pursuant to Notification TR/KU/2000-53 dated 8-3-2000 (Annexure-A) petitioner on prescribed form applied for admission to Post-Graduate Programme of M.Ed for the Academic Session 2000-2001.Petition appear in interview/test and came to be selected for the course/programme in open Merit category (Annexure-C). After the fee was accepted she was admitted to M.ED Programme of one years duration and attended the class for over three months, when the respondents without formally canceling her ad mission to the Programme, attempted to restrain her from prosecuting the studies on the ground that she had already obtained Post Graduate Course (M.A) Linguistics. In terms of Brochure Information she was not barred to seek admission and prosecute the Post Graduate Programme in as much as M.ED Course within the Captioned other programmes are not covered by any decision or rule of the University that a candidate to be eligible for admission to the another Post Graduate Programme as a regular student should not have obtained one Post Graduate degree in Post Graduate Programme of Linguistics. The disability clause of the Information Brochure is not applicable to the petitioners case. 5. The petitioner has been admitted to the course after she has given all the information required as per the University Admission Notification Annexure-A, and therefore could not be deprived of the degree and her candidature could not be with drawn when she has been even allowed by the University to appear in the final examination and only the result is to be declared. 6. In reply, respondents have not denied that petitioner succeeded on her merit on OMC to get admission in M.ED for the session and after depositing the fee she has been admitted to the course and has regularly attended the classes. It is not as well denied that she has been allowed to regularly attended the entire length of the course lasting for one year and has been allowed by the University to appear in the final examination. Her result alone is to be declared. 7. It is not as well denied that she has been allowed to regularly attended the entire length of the course lasting for one year and has been allowed by the University to appear in the final examination. Her result alone is to be declared. 7. Respondent submit that as she had got Post Graduate Degree in Linguistics; therefore, she could not have appeared in M.ED, as per the policy of the University. As she had not disclosed having already completed Postgraduate course in M.A. Linguistics, therefore, the University cancelled her admission to the post. However, Mr. Bazaz, the learned counsel was asked to place on record the cancellation of the admission of the petitioner to the course; he simply ducked the querry under the reply that the same is not forthcoming from the University records. 8. Petitioners counsel submits that the admission of the petitioner was never cancelled and she was allowed to attend and complete the course as regular student and she was also allowed to appear in the examination, therefore, in such circumstances, respondents are stopped from withholding the result of the petitioner. In Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (Supra) (AIR 1976 SC: 376), in the context of examination of the student, the Supreme court observed that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. 9. Once she is admitted and allowed to appear in the final examination as a regular student, her result would have to be declared as principles of estopple applies against the University authorities, who are precluded and estopped from canceling/withdrawing the candidature of the petitioner allowed to appear in the examination and complete the examination. In such eventuality, her result cannot be withheld See, (i) Ambika Prasad Mohanty and etc Vs. Orissa Engineering College and another (AIR 1989 Orissa 173); (ii) Bireswar Mohapatras case (AIR 1977 NOC 12); (iii) Miss Safiya Farhat Vs. Board of School Education and others, OWP No.38 of 2001. Faced with the fact situation, as above, and law applicable to this case, Mr. Orissa Engineering College and another (AIR 1989 Orissa 173); (ii) Bireswar Mohapatras case (AIR 1977 NOC 12); (iii) Miss Safiya Farhat Vs. Board of School Education and others, OWP No.38 of 2001. Faced with the fact situation, as above, and law applicable to this case, Mr. Bazaz, submits and concedes that the court may issue directions to the respondents/ competent authority of the University to declare the result of the petitioner of the said M.ED Examination. However, Mr. Bazaz, submits that the direction, merited on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, be not made to serve as a precedent for other similar cases, to seek benefits of the judgment. 10. In result, the writ petition as also the CMP 468/2001 is allowed, respondents/competent authority is directed to declare the result of the petitioner of M.ED Programme for Session 2000-2001, in the annual examination of which programme, she has been admitted as a regular student of the University. However, it is made clear that this decision, given in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, shall not serve as a precedent for disposal of like other cases. Disposed of.