Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 238 (HP)

DILRAJ SINGH v. H. P. UNIVERSITY

2004-09-23

A.K.GOEL, V.K.GUPTA

body2004
JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, CJ. (Oral): A very short controversy is involved for adjudication in this petition. 2. The first Ordinances of the HP. University, inter alia, relate to the admission procedures in various courses and studies. Ordinance 1.4. stipulates and lays down the minimum qualifications prescribed for admissions to various courses and examinations, leading to the award of degrees and certificates of the University. The opening part of Ordinance 1.4 which is relevant for our purpose reads thus: "1.4 Minimum Qualifications The minimum qualification for prescribed for admission admission to courses and examinations, leading to the degree and certificates of University qualifications shall be .as under: Pre-University: Deleted." 3. In so far as the course of bachelor of Laws in the Faculty of Law is concerned the minimum qualification prescribed in the aforesaid Ordinance has been laid down as under:- "Faculty of Law. "Bachelor of law (Academic or Bachelors degree of any Faculty non-professional (B.L.) and of University established by law in Bachelor of India with at least 40% marks, if there is an entrance test and 45% marks if there is no entrance test." 4. It is the undisputed case of the parties before us that the petitioner, when he was admitted in the First Semester of LL.B. Degree Course in Himachal Pradesh College of Law, Kala Amb District Sirmaur, H.P. in the Academic Session 2003-04 had only 44.4% marks in the Bachelor Degree Examination. It is also the admitted case of the parties before us that no entrance test was held for admission to this course for the Academic Sessions 2003-04. The minimum eligibility criterion therefore, for admission to the course of Bachelor of Laws, in case no entrance test was held was 45% marks in the Bachelor Degree Examination and despite this binding and mandatory stipulation, respondent No. 2 admitted the petitioner in the First Semester of LL.B. in the Academic Session 2003-04 knowing fully well that the petitioner did not conform to, nor did he satisfy the aforesaid binding stipulation since he was not possessed of the requisite eligibility merit of 45% marks. It is not the case of respondent No. 2 before us that this respondent was not aware of this binding and mandatory prescription of law. It is not the case of respondent No. 2 before us that this respondent was not aware of this binding and mandatory prescription of law. Yet, despite being fully aware of this he committed the patent illegality of admitting a student in a course even though the student was not at all eligible for such admission. 5. Mr. Patial learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also not been able to show to us any provision of law whereby any relaxation could be granted in favour of the petitioner in so far as his admission is concerned because undoubtedly, 45% marks in the qualifying examination was the bare minimum eligibility criteria. On all counts therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for admission and respondent No. 2-College therefore, has committed a grave illegality in admitting the petitioner to this course. It was because of this illegality that respondent No. 1-University did not approve of the act and conduct of respondent No. 2 and did not permit the petitioner to sit in the Second Semester examination when this illegality came to the notice of the University-respondent No. 1. 6. We are therefore, convinced that the petitioner was not eligible for admission. We are also convinced that respondent No. 2 has committed a patent illegality in admitting an ineligible person to the Bachelor of Laws Course. We have no option therefore, but to pass the following order in this case and issue herein below contained directions: 1. The petitioners admission shall be deemed to have been null and void ab initio. 2. Even though the petitioner was not eligible yet the basic fault lies with respondent No. 2 is admitting the petitioner and in the process wasting the petitioners one year. Respondent No. 2 is thus held liable and responsible to compensate the petitioner for this loss. 3. Mr. Harish Dod, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 under instruction from his client imparted to him in the open Court today has submitted before us that his client is prepared to refund the fees paid by the petitioner and also in addition pay a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation to the petitioner for the loss of one year. We record this statement of Mr. Dod and direct respondent No. 2 to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within one month from today. 4. 50,000/- by way of compensation to the petitioner for the loss of one year. We record this statement of Mr. Dod and direct respondent No. 2 to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within one month from today. 4. We direct the Bar Council of India to examine this case and to find out if respondent No. 2 Institution has rendered itself liable for any action, including the action of derecognizing the Institution, and if so, to initiate such action in accordance with law and to take it to its logical conclusion. 5. We also direct respondent No. 1-H.P. University to examine this case and find out and decide as to whether a case is made out for de-affiliation of respondent No. 2-Institution because of the aforesaid act of commission on its part and if indeed respondent No. 1 decides that such a case is made out, to initiate action in accordance with law and to make it to its logical conclusion. 7. Directions at (4) and (5) hereinabove are being issued by us only with a view to ensuring that if indeed respondent No. 2 deserves to be dealt with adversely, such action is initiated and completed so that in future neither this respondent nor other institutions similarly placed commit such irregularity/illegality of admitting students in higher studies despite the fact that such students are not eligible for admission. 8. Since the Bar Council of India is not a party respondent in this petition before us, we direct the Registrar General of this Court to send a copy of this judgment to the Bar Council of India along with her conversing letter for the information of the Bar Council of India and for due compliance of the directions hereinabove contained. 9. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to costs.