Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 605 (CAL)

SUMIT KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

2003-12-03

PRADIPTA RAY

body2003
PRADIPTA RAY, J. ( 1 ) 1. The petitioner is a resident of Bihar. He passed the All India Secondary school Examination held by the Central Board of Secondary Education in 1999. He, thereafter, prosecuted his studies through the system of distance education under the Directorate of Distance Education (ICC), Patna and passed the Intermediate Examination in Commerce in 2001 in the 1st Division. The bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, granted provisional pass certificate in favour of the writ petitioner. After obtaining the qualification of intermediate in Commerce through the system of distance education in Bihar, the petitioner came to Calcutta to prosecute further higher studies in commerce under the Calcutta University. Upon his application the City college of Commerce and Business Administration, Surya Sen Street, Calcutta, (hereinafter referred to as the City College) admitted the petitioner on August 14, 2000 in Bachelor cf Commerce Course (in short B. Com ). As the petitioner was a student from another State his admission was required to be approved and sanctioned by the University of Calcutta. The petitioner continued his study, and was duly promoted to the second year of the course in the aforesaid City College. The College authorities never informed the writ petitioner that he was not eligible to be admitted into the B. Com. course under the University of Calcutta. ( 2 ) IT appears that by a letter dated December 20, 2002 the Principal of the College forwarded the petitioner's application for sanction/approval of his admission and registration. on migration. By a letter dated January 21, 2003 the University intimated the Principal of the City College that the petitioner was not eligible to be admitted into any Degree Course under the calcutta University. ( 3 ) AGAINST the said decision of the Calcutta University the petitioner has moved this Court with the present application under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 4 ) MR. Dipapkar Dutta, learned Advocate for the Calcutta University has submitted that the Calcutta University has not yet recognised any qualification acquired through the system of distance of education. It is pointed out that by a circular dated April 25, 1996 University intimated all the affiliated colleges about the category of students who should not be admitted into any course under the University. Mr. It is pointed out that by a circular dated April 25, 1996 University intimated all the affiliated colleges about the category of students who should not be admitted into any course under the University. Mr. Dutta also points out even in the application form for Registration on Ma'gration it has been expressly stated that student from Correspondence Course are not eligible for admission to any higher course of study under the University of Calcutta. According to Mr. Dutta the city College Administration was responsible for admitting the petitioner knowing fully well that he was not eligible to be admitted and for causing loss of two years to the student. As the University of Calcutta has not yet recognised any qualification obtained through distance education system and its regulations do not permit admission of such student this Court is unable to direct the University to sanction or approve admission of the petitioner. ( 5 ) INITIALLY the College Authorities did not enter appearance in spite of service of notice. By order dated August 22, 2003 this Court directed the petitioner to serve another notice to the College Authorities with the express observation that if the College Authorities are found to be responsible for causing loss and damages to the petitioner's career, this Court may direct the college Authorities to pay compensation. Upon service of the second notice along with the order of this Court dated August 22, 2003 the Teacher-in-Charge of the City College has entered appearance through a learned advocate. ( 6 ) TEACHER-IN-CHARGE admits that it was a lapse on the part of the college Administration to admit the petitioner. It is however pointed out that the College Administration has moved the University for granting special permission in this case. As already stated, in view of the fact that the intermediate Qualification of the petitioner is not a qualification recognised by the University it is not possible for the University to make any exception and to approve or sanction the admission of the petitioner. ( 7 ) LEARNED Advocate for the Teacher-in-Charge of the College states on instruction that the College Administration particularly the Teacher-in-Charge himself will try their best to get the petitioner admitted into a distance education course of Indira Gandhi Open University or any other similar recognised course and will render all possible assistance including supply of study materials and bearing the expenses of such education. The petitioner has however expressed his inability to accept the said offer of assistance inasmuch as it is not possible for him to stay in Calcutta. The petitioner comes of a poor family and his guardians can not bear the expenses of staying in calcutta. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute that the College Authorities were aware of the university's Circular prohibiting admission of students acquiring qualification through distance education system. The petitioner came from another State, applied for admission in City College of Commerce and Business Administration, a well known College of Commerce in good faith. The College administration admitted him although he was not eligible to be admitted. The petitioner was admitted on August 14, 2001 but his application for Registration on Migration was forwarded to the University only on December 20, 2002. Petitioner was a student obtaining qualification from another state and his admission was provisional subject to sanction of the University. It is not understandable why in such cases the College Administration did not send the application for sanction of the admission of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. ( 9 ) THERE is no doubt that due to negligence and/or carelessness of the College Authorities petitioner has lost about two valuable years of his career. If he was told at the very beginning 'that he was not eligible to be admitted he might have gone back to his own state and prosecuted further studies there. This Court appreciates the offer of the College Authorities to mitigate the suffering of the petitioner but under the circumstances the petitioner is not in a position to accept such offer. ( 10 ) LOSS of two years in the career of a student matters much. He may have to suffer throughout his career this loss of two years. In such circumstances this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to some compensation from the College Authorities. ( 11 ) LEARNED Advocate for the Teacher-in-Charge of the College submits that the petitioner should file suit in the Civil Court for damages or compensation and this Court in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction should not direct the College Authorities to pay any compensation. ( 12 ) IN the present case there is no dispute that the Administration of the College acted in a very casual, careless, negligent and indifferent manner. ( 12 ) IN the present case there is no dispute that the Administration of the College acted in a very casual, careless, negligent and indifferent manner. The College Authorities did not even take any expeditious or prompt step to move the University for obtaining necessary sanction. Consequence is loss of two valuable years by the student. In such cases where lapse on the part of the College and the consequential loss are undisputed this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is competent to grant appropriate compensation and the victim student need not be relegated to a time-consuming civil litigation. ( 13 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the present case this court is of the view that the Authorities of the City College should pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Management/governing Body of the City College of Commerce and Business Administration at Surya Sen Street to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within one month from the date of communication of this order. No order as to costs.