Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 163 (PNJ)

Nitya Nand Choudhary v. Kurukshetra University

2002-02-05

JASBIR SINGH, N.K.SODHI

body2002
Judgment N.K.SODHI, J. 1. This order will dispose of three Civil Petitions Nos. 10934, 2852 and 15190 of 2001 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since arguments were addressed in Civil Writ Petition No. 12852 of 2001, facts are being taken from this case. 2. Admissions to the four years B.Tech/B.E. Engineering/Technology courses 2000-2001 were made on the basis of an entrance test which was conducted by Guru Jambeshwar University, Hisar for all the Enigineering Colleges in the State of Haryana. This test which was held on 9-7-2000 was open to candidates who had passed their qualifying examination (10 + 2) or had appeared in the qualifying examination in March/April, 2000, 15 per cent seats in all the Engineering Colleges were meant for students who appeared from schools/colleges located anywhere in India/Abroad known as the All India category. 50 per cent seats in private colleges were free seats (normal fee) and the remaining 50 per cent were payment seats. No eligible candidate could be given admission to an engineering course in any institution in the State unless he had taken the entrance test. 3. Petitioners who had passed their qualifying exam. of 10 + 2 from Bihar Intermediate Education Council (for short the Council), took the entrance test and qualified for admission to an engineering course. They were seeking admission against 15% meant for the All India category. On the basis of their merit in the entrance test, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were admitted in Seth Jai Prakash Mukand Lal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Radaur, District Yamunagar in the discipline of Computer Science and Mechanical Engineering, respectively, whereas petitioner No. 3 was given admission in the Maharishi Markandeshwar Engineering College, Mullana, District Ambala, Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were admitted against free seats whereas petitioner No. 3 was given admission against a paid seat. All the petitioners received letters from the Chairman of the Admissions Committee informing them that they had been admitted on the basis of their merit in the entrance test and on the basis of the counselling held thereafter. The colleges where the petitioners were given admission are affiliated to the Kurukshetra University (hereinafter referred to as the University). In pursuance to their admission, the petitioners joined the first year of the four years course and started attending their classes. 4. The colleges where the petitioners were given admission are affiliated to the Kurukshetra University (hereinafter referred to as the University). In pursuance to their admission, the petitioners joined the first year of the four years course and started attending their classes. 4. In January, 2001 the petitioners received notices from the Assistant Registrar of the University calling upon them to show cause why their admission to the course be not cancelled. It was stated therein that from a perusal of the original documents submitted by them it transpired that they were ineligible for admission as they had passed the 10 + 2 examination from the Council which stood de-recognised by the University for taking admission to any course. Detailed replies were filed by the petitioners pointing out that they were considered eligible for admission to the course on the basis of their merit and ranking in the entrance test conducted by Guru Jambheshwar University and that they had taken admission against 15% seats meant for All India category. They also pointed out that the Council was an autonomous body under the Bihar Government and all examinations conducted by it are recognised by other State Governments as equivalent to those conducted by CBSE and other autonomous bodies and that the 10 + 2 examination conducted by the Council was recognised for admission to various courses in the Delhi University, Jawahar Lal Nehru University and even to the Indian Institutes of Technology throughout the country. After considering the reply, the University by its letter dated 24-7-2001 informed the Principals of the colleges where the petitioners were studying that since the Intermediate examination passed by a candidate from the Council stood de-recognised by the University with effect from 26-12-1998, the petitioners were ineligible for admission and the Principals were advised to cancel their admission. It was then that the present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the University in cancelling the admission of the petitioners. 5. In response to the notice of motion the University has filed its reply in which the factual position as stated above is not disputed. It was then that the present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the University in cancelling the admission of the petitioners. 5. In response to the notice of motion the University has filed its reply in which the factual position as stated above is not disputed. However, its action in cancelling the admission of the petitioners is sought to be justified on the ground that the Intermediate examination conducted by the Council stood de-recognised by the University in December, 1998 and, therefore, the petitioners were ineligible to seek admission to the Engineering course. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties. There is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioners were given admission to the four years Engineering course after they cleared the entrance test. They had not made any mis-representation while submitting their application forms. Rather they had made it clear that they had passed the 10 + 2 examination from the Council. After they were given the admission they had completed one year of the course...... when they were told that they were ineligible. On the basis of an interim order passed by this court they are continuing with their studies and have also been allowed to take the third semester examination. The examination conducted by the Council had earlier been recognised by the University and it was only in December, 1998 that it decided to de-recognise the same. It was nowhere mentioned in the brochure or in the admission form that the said examination stood de-recognised. Therefore, it follows that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that their qualifying examination was not a recognised one and having applied for the course they were given admission. To ask the petitioners to quit the course at this stage when they have almost completed two years of the study would be most unfair and unjust in the circumstances of the case. Two valuable years of their academic career would be wasted for no fault of theirs. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the imugned action of the University in cancelling the admission of the petitioners and direct it to allow the petitioners to complete their course in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the same. Two valuable years of their academic career would be wasted for no fault of theirs. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the imugned action of the University in cancelling the admission of the petitioners and direct it to allow the petitioners to complete their course in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the same. The view that we have taken finds support from the observations of the Apex Court in Chairman, Central Council of Homoeopathy V/s. Varinder Singh, 2000 (10) JT (SC) 231 , Shri Krishan V/s. The Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376, Sanatan Gauda V/s. Berhampur University, AIR 1990 SC 1075 and Ashok Chand Singhvi V/s. University of Jodhpur, AIR 1989 SC 823. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Sandhya Singh V/s. Punjabi University, Civil Writ Petition 17677 of 2000 decided on 20-12-2001 (reported in 2002 (1) Pun LR 487). 7. In order to avoid such a situation in future, it would be advisable for any University/Authority which conducts the entrance test and issues a brochure for admission to various engineering/technology/architecture courses to publish a list of institutions which have been de-recognised by the different Universities in the State or else a list of recognised institutions should be maintained either by the State Government or by the Universities in the State making it clear in the brochure and in the admission form that only such students would be eligible for admission who have passed their qualifying examination from recognised institutions. In other words, the students should be told about the recognised institutions and the qualifying courses so that they know where to go for admission. If this is done there students like the petitioners whose qualifying courses have not been recognised or were later de-recognised would not be allowed admission at the threshold so that they can seek admission elsewhere in the Universities and Bodies where their courses are recognised. 8. The writ petitions stand allowed as above with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.