Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 690 (MP)

Prashant Sharma v. State of M. P.

2005-07-07

DIPAK MISRA

body2005
JUDGMENT The petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 secured 57.31%, 52.3%, and 54.3% respectively in the aggregate in the subjects of Physics. Chemistry and Mathematics of Class XIIth Examination. They appeared in the Professional Examination Board of M.P. and were kept in the waiting list for the academic session 1997-98. A set of rules, namely, Rules for Conduct of Entrance Test Rules for Admission (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') were framed by the respondent No.2. The said Rules stipulated that 50% of the total seats would be free seats and remaining 50%, seats would be payments seats. The petitioners were admitted after the waiting list was exhausted. It is not disputed that they appeared for the remaining scats. According to the writ petitioners they pursued their studies in various courses such as B.E. (Electrical). B.E. (Computer Science) and B.L (Electronics). While they were prosecuting their studies a bolt from the blue hit them as their admissions were cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing or even issuing show cause by the respondent No, 4. the Principal of the College on the ground that the Principal had admitted the petitioners in violation of the Rules and further that the 10 seats for the next year would not stand reduced. Then alter the Principal by order dated 5.10.1998, Annexure P-7 passed the following order. "Lakshmi Narain College of Technology Pushpanagar Bhopal LNCT/449/98, Dated 5.10.1998 Sub : Cancellation of the admission. The following students arc hereby informed that their admission in R.E. Degree course has not been approved by the Director of Technical Education, Bhopal. Consequently their admission is here by cancelled from this college with immediate effect. Electrical Engineering Branch -- 1 . Shri Ashish Verma 2. Shri Manoj Kumar Jain 3. Shri Neeraj Rai 4. Shri Prashan Sharma 5. Shri Rahul Shinde Computer Science & Engineering Branch -- 6. Shri Vinod Balchandani 7. Ku. Anita Tripathi 8. Ku. Preeti Gupta Electronics Engineering Branch - 9. Shri Pradeep Chauhan These students may obtain their documents from the college office during the working hours. (M.D. Singh) Principal Copy to : each of the students" At this stage the petitioners approached this Court in this writ petition and this Court vide order dated 24.11.1998 passed the following order: "The three petitioners are students of Laxmi Narain College of Technology, Bhopal, prosecuting B.E. Degree courses in various disciplines. (M.D. Singh) Principal Copy to : each of the students" At this stage the petitioners approached this Court in this writ petition and this Court vide order dated 24.11.1998 passed the following order: "The three petitioners are students of Laxmi Narain College of Technology, Bhopal, prosecuting B.E. Degree courses in various disciplines. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of some enquiry by the State Govt. without any notice to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 has issued order -- Annexure P-7, by which he has cancelled the admission or the petitioners on the ground that the same had not been approved by the Director of Technical Education. The petitioners have according to the learned counsel already completed two semesters and have now to take third semester examination. Learned counsel has also invited attention to the order dated 19.11.1998 passed in V.P. No. 5563/98 in which in a similar matter, the: cancellation of admission has been stayed and the students have been permitted to submit forms and fees for the ensuring examination pending notice to the respondents. Accordingly, issue notice or this petition to the respondents to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted and interim relict as prayed be not granted to the petitioner. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 5.10.1998, by which admission of the petitioners has been cancelled, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing." Submission of Mr. Ashok Lalwani and Mr. Avinash Jargar, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had been extended the benefit of admission and they had continued for 1-1/2 years and without issuing notice to show cause same could not has been cancelled. It is further urged by them that they have not misled the authorities in any aspect and, in fact, filed their mark-sheets which clearly spell out the things in order. Finally, it is put forth that they have already completed the course and two of them have obtained degrees and only one has to undergo certain supplementary examination. Mr. Harish Agnihotri learned Government Advocate for the State has fairly stated that no show cause was issued by the Principal but the petitioners were required to have 60% marks in aggregate and as they did not have the same their admissions deserved to be cancelled. None has appeared for the Principal who has cancelled the order of admission. Mr. Harish Agnihotri learned Government Advocate for the State has fairly stated that no show cause was issued by the Principal but the petitioners were required to have 60% marks in aggregate and as they did not have the same their admissions deserved to be cancelled. None has appeared for the Principal who has cancelled the order of admission. On analysis of the factual scenario three things emerge viz (i) the petitioners were admitted in respect of vacant seats, though they did not have necessary requisite qualifications; (ii) the petitioners had completed 1-1/2 years of course by the time the Principal communicated the order of cancellation as per Annexure P-7; and (iii) that no notice to show cause was issued to the petitioners and this Court had granted stay, as a consequence of which the petitioners have completed the Course. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion, when no fraud had been played by the petitioners and no erroneous statements had been made and they were admitted and prosecuted the studies, they were entitled to be heard before any adverse civil consequences visited them. True it is, the marks are not disputed but after the petitioners had completed the Course and obtained the degree it would not be appropriate to cancel the degree. It shall be seemly to hold that they should not suffer from fault of the selecting authority at this stage. More so, when the Court had passed an order of stay in the year 1998. In view of the aforesaid, the cancellation of the admission of the petitioners vide Annexure P-7 as far as it relates to them stands quashed. Be it noted, the present order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be regarded as a precedent for the purpose that when there will be 1ack of qualification a person would get advantage because he has been selected or admitted. The petitioner No.2, who has to give supplementary examination shall be allowed to appear as per the permissible parameters. The writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.