Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 138 (JK)

Brigunandan v. Director Of Distance Education

2006-05-25

NIRMAL SINGH

body2006
1. The petitioner passed his BA examination in July, 1997 from the University of Kurukshetra in one sitting. The Directorate, Distance Education, University of Jammu, invited applications from the eligible candidates for B. Ed. Course through Distance Education mode for Session 1999-2001. In pursuance of the applications invited by the Directorate, Distance Education, University of Jammu, the petitioner submitted his application for admission to B. Ed Course for the Session 1999-2001. The petitioner was provisionally selected for admission to the said Course by the respondents and the communication dated 5/11/1999 in this regard, which was conveyed by respondent-2 to the petitioner, is appended with the petition as annexure-D. 2. The petitioner was directed to deposit fee amounting to Rs.8350/- which he deposited on 13th Nov. 1999. The receipt issued to this effect by respondent-1 through cashier is appended with the petition as annexure-E. 3. The petitioner was also asked to deposit examination fee for the B. Ed Course for the Session 1999-2001. He has also deposited the fee with the respondents and subsequently the petitioner was allotted Roll number. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the examination. 4. The petitioner received an intimation from respondent-2 that a candidate who has passed B.A in one sitting is not eligible for B.Ed, admission. As such, the registration of petitioner was withheld. 5. The petitioner impugned the said order on the ground that it has been passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to him and also without adhering to the procedure prescribed by law and the same is unconstitutional and unjust. 6. On notice, the respondents have filed the objections and they have pleaded that the petitioner was ineligible for admission to the B. Ed. Course in terms of the Statute. The petitioner who is seeking B. Ed, admission through Distance Education was supposed to have his B.A Degree of 10+2+3 pattern. At petitioners credit is B.A Degree obtained under the one sitting examination system from Kurukhetra University which is not recognized by University of Jam mil. 7. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he has obtained the B.A Degree in one sitting from Kurukeshetra University. The only point which is to be considered in this petition is as to whether a candidate who has obtained the Degree of one sitting is eligible for B. Ed. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he has obtained the B.A Degree in one sitting from Kurukeshetra University. The only point which is to be considered in this petition is as to whether a candidate who has obtained the Degree of one sitting is eligible for B. Ed. Course through Distance Education from University of Jammu. 8. As per the Brochure of the University of Jammu, the admission to B. Ed. Course through Distance Education mode shall be open to the candidates on following eligibility criteria:- "(i) Who have passed bachelors Degree Examination in the Faculty of Arts, Science, Social Sciences, Commerce, Agriculture or Faculty of Music and Fine Arts, conducted by the University of Jammu or an examination of any other University recognized as equivalent thereto, (i) Serving as full time teachers in recognized schools (Primary, Secondary, Higher Secondary levels) within the territorial jurisdiction of the University of Jammu. (ii) Having minimum of 2 years teaching experience at the time of submission of application form for admission". 9. Mr. D.S. Thakur, learned counsel for respondents, submitted that petitioner is ineligible for admission to B. Ed. Course as he has obtained the Degree from Kurukshetra University in one sitting and Academic Committee of the University has taken a decision that the candidate who has obtained B.A Degree in 10+ 2+3 pattern is only eligible for admission to B. Ed. Course through Distance Education. 10. As per the University Statute/Brochure the eligibility criteria for admission to B. Ed. Course is that a candidate must have passed Bachelors Degree Examination in the Faculty of Arts, Science, Social Sciences, Commerce, Agriculture or Faculty of Music and Fine Arts, conducted by the University of Jammu or an examination of any other University recognized as equivalent thereto. 11. At the hearing when it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the respondents whether a Bachelor Degree obtained by a candidate in one sitting is not equivalent to the Degree issued by the University of Jammu, he very fairly conceded that the Degree issued by Kurukshetra University is equivalent to the Degree issued by Jammu University, but he laid stress on the point that Academic Committee has taken the decision that a candidate who has obtained B.A Degree in 10+2+3 pattern is only eligible for B.Ed. Course. The policy decision taken by the Academic Committee ` will not override the Statute. Course. The policy decision taken by the Academic Committee ` will not override the Statute. Even in the Brochure the respondents have not mentioned that only candidate(s) who has obtained a Degree from University of Jammu or from another university under 10+2+3 system is eligible for admission to B. Ed. Course. In the Brochure for admission to M.Com. the eligibility criteria has been mentioned B.Com under 10+2+3 system or B.A/B.Sc. with 1st division under 10+2+3 system alongwith DBM with 48% of marks in DBM. Even for the admission to the B.A/B.Com the pattern is 10+2 or equivalent examination in relevant discipline, but no such pattern has been adopted for B.Ed. Course. 12. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court has already taken a decision that a Degree or diploma obtained by a candidate in one sitting is not eligible to seek admission to MBA Course. The Judgment in case Susheel Kumar Bharti versus University of Jammu and others passed in OWP 520/1997 relied upon by the respondents is not relevant for the point in issue. In that case the candidate after passing 10+2 examination from J & K State Board of School Education joined Institute of Hotel Management in the year 1993 and underwent three years diploma course in the Hotel Management & Catering and Nutrition conducted by National Council of Hotel Management & Catering Technology, New Delhi, and completed the Course in 1996. During the Course of attending his classes for diploma in Hotel Management he also obtained his graduation Degree from Osmania University as external candidate in one sitting. The Jammu University invited applications for MBA and his graduation Degree from Osmania University was not recognized as equivalent to the Degree issued by the University of Jammu. Therefore, his admission was cancelled. Thereafter this Court has held that petitioner does not fall within the criteria prescribed by the Jammu University; although, he may be a Graduate in the technical sense, but he is not eligible in accordance with the eligibility prescribed by the University of Jammu, to seek admission in MBA Course/Programme. 13. The petitioner applied for admission to B.Ed. Course, he had attached alongwith his application form the detailed marks sheet as well as Degree. The detailed marks sheet clearly indicates that petitioner had appeared in BA Part-I, II and III examination under Roll No.0353804 in the Month of July, 1997. 13. The petitioner applied for admission to B.Ed. Course, he had attached alongwith his application form the detailed marks sheet as well as Degree. The detailed marks sheet clearly indicates that petitioner had appeared in BA Part-I, II and III examination under Roll No.0353804 in the Month of July, 1997. The Degree also indicates that the petitioner has obtained it in one sitting. Rcspondent-2 after examining detailed marks sheet as well as Degree gave provisional permission to petitioner. He was asked to deposit the fee. Again he was asked to deposit the examination fee. The petitioner was allotted Roll number and was permitted to appear in the examination. 14. From the facts of the case it is clear that petitioner has not obtained admission to B.Ed. Course through Distance Education by mis-representation or fraud. When a candidate has not got admission by way of fraud or mis-representation and he was allowed to continue to complete the Course and was also allowed to appear in the examination then his admission cannot be cancelled and the respondents are estopped from saying that the petitioner was not eligible as he has not completed the Degree of 10+2+3 pattern. 15. In Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University AIR 1976 SC 376 three Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court propounded 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 who 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. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate. 16. It was further held that if neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinize the admission form, then the question of candidate committing a fraud did not arise as it is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. It is neither a case of suggestio falsi supperssio veri. 17. It is neither a case of suggestio falsi supperssio veri. 17. The petitioner has already studied through Distance Education for two years and has also appeared in final B.Ed, examination, therefore, his result cannot be withheld. 18. In Rajendra Parsad v. Karnatka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448, wherein, the Apex Court has held as under: - "The question still remains whether we should allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering colleges in which they were admitted. It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of this court they have been pursuing their course of study in the respective Engineering colleges and their admissions should not now be disturbed because if they are now thrown out after a period of almost four years since their admission their whole future-will be blighted. Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the Engineering Degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But is must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the Engineering colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants. It is quite possible that the appellants did not know that neither the higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognized as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board Banglore. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any even the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the Engineering colleges "which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these Engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the management of these Engineering colleges. We would therefore notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering colleges in which they were granted admission." 19. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the management of these Engineering colleges. We would therefore notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering colleges in which they were granted admission." 19. In the instant case, as it has been observed above, the petitioner has not obtained the admission by way of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts and has also studied for two years. The respondents have also allotted roll number to the petitioner and allowed him to appear in the examination. So at the fag end the respondents cannot say that the petitioner was ineligible for admission to B.Ed. Course. The petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria as per the Statute/Brochure, therefore, the respondents cannot withheld the registration of the petitioner on the basis of policy decision of the Academic Committee. 20. Accordingly, this, petition is allowed and the impugned order bearing No.BED/DDE/19162-171 dated 14.9.2001 (annexure-A) passed by respondent-2, whereby registration of the petitioner to B.Ed. Course has been withheld, is quashed. I further direct the respondent-University to declare the result of the petitioner. 21. Parties are left free to bear their own costs.