Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 785 (GAU)

Bishwadeep Poddar v. State of Assam

2006-08-23

AMITAVA ROY

body2006
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of admission in the Assam Engineering College, Jalukbari, Guwahati, for having failed to satisfy the requirements of Clauses 5(b) and 5(c) of the Information. Bulletin issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Assam, laying down inter alia the conditions of eligibility for induction in the two State Government Engineering Colleges, Assam Engineering College, Guwahati and Jorhat Engineering College, Jorhat. 2. I have heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 3. Briefly stated the facts essential for dealing with the contentions raised are that the Petitioner had passed the 1st year H.S. (S.C.) Examination in the year 2004 from Cotton College, Guwahati, under the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council in the first division obtaining 64% marks in average. Thereafter he appeared in the H.S. 2nd year examination in 2005 and passed the same in the first division securing 61.4% marks though he failed in the forth paper i.e. Maths. He availed the betterment chance under the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council Rules,2006, and reappeared in the H.S. Examination in three subjects-- Physics, Chemistry and Maths and obtained 73% marks in average. 4. He thereafter participated in the process for admission into M.B.B.S/B.D.S/B.A.M.S. and B.E. Degree Courses in Colleges of the State of Assam and took the Combined Entrance Examination, 2006, (hereafter referred to as the CEE). In the result that was published on 30.6.2006, he was included in the list of the successful candidates in the general category. He along with the other candidates appeared before the Admission cum Interview Board for final selection along with his testimonials in original. On the date of the interview i.e. 11.7.2006, the Interview Board after verification of his documents permitted his admission in the Electronics stream in the Assam Engineering College, Jalukbari. The Petitioner accordingly, as required, deposited an amount of Rs. 3,000/-together with the Counseling charge of Rs. 300/- on the very same date with the appropriate authority. When he along with the other candidates appeared on 17.7.2006 as directed, he was denied admission for having failed to qualify in terms of the prescription of Clause 5(b) and (c) of the Information Bulletin issued by the Director of Technical Education for Admission to Engineering Colleges of the State of Assam. When he along with the other candidates appeared on 17.7.2006 as directed, he was denied admission for having failed to qualify in terms of the prescription of Clause 5(b) and (c) of the Information Bulletin issued by the Director of Technical Education for Admission to Engineering Colleges of the State of Assam. In the meantime, the Petitioner had also responded to an advertisement by the North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology (hereafter referred to as NERIST) for which he had been issued the admit card for appearing in the entrance examination to be held on 4.6.2006. He succeeded there as well and was supposed to appear in the interview to be held on 13.7.2006. However, in view of his admission in the Assam Engineering College on 11.7.2006 and the retention of his certificate and mark-sheets in original by the authorities of the said institution, he was rendered unable to appear in the interview conducted by NERIST. 5. Mr. Dey has urged that the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council (hereafter referred to as the Council) having permitted the willing candidates under its scheme to avail an opportunity to better their result in three subjects of the their choice, the requirement of passing four subjects namely English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics envisaged in Clause 5(b) of the Information Bulletin in the same sitting is wholly irreconcilable therewith and being arbitrary, unintelligible and illogical, is liable to be adjudged nonest in law. Further the Petitioner having been admitted to the course in the Assam Engineering College, Guwahati, following the scrutiny of his testimonials, the concerned Respondent authorities were estopped in law from refusing him final admission on completion of necessary formalities. Without prejudice to the above, Mr. Dey has contended that the withholding of the Petitioner's documents in original by the authorities of the Assam Engineering Colleges, Guwahati, had rendered it impracticable for him to appear in the interview held by the NERIST and, therefore, the impugned refusal in any view of the matter is wholly unfair and has the potential or ruining one academic year of his. 6. The learned Standing Counsel in reply has urged that the Petitioner being per se ineligible in terms of Clause 5(b) and (c) of the Information Bulletin to secure admission in the Engineering Colleges of the State referred to therein, the impugned action cannot be faulted with. 6. The learned Standing Counsel in reply has urged that the Petitioner being per se ineligible in terms of Clause 5(b) and (c) of the Information Bulletin to secure admission in the Engineering Colleges of the State referred to therein, the impugned action cannot be faulted with. The Petitioner having participated in the process being aware of his deficiencies in terms of the Information Bulletin, the contention based on promissory estoppel is misconceived. 7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be expedient to extract the relevant clauses of the Information Bulletin for the Candidates. 5...Eligibility for Admission To be eligible for admission to any of the Colleges a candidate must fulfill the following conditions: (a).... (b) Pass, the Higher Secondary Examination of the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council or its equivalent in which the subjects English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics have been cleared in the same sitting. (c) Pass, the qualifying examination securing at least 50% and (45% in case of S.C. and 40% in case of S.T.) marks in the aggregate of the subjects Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the same sitting. 8. I have extended my consideration to the competing arguments. The pleaded facts disclose that the Petitioner to better his results of the H.S. Examination, 2005, had opted to appear in the H. Section final examination, 2006, under the Betterment scheme in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. Though the scheme offers an opportunity to the willing candidates seeking to better their results in the three subjects of their choice to reappear in the H.S. Final Examination, the same is without reference to the norms or prescribed criteria of eligibility for any competitive drill for admission to any higher educational course. There was no compulsion for any candidate to take the examination under the scheme. The Petitioner indeed voluntarily availed the opportunity restricting his choice to three subjects, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. 9. The Director of Technical Education, Assam, in the Information to the Candidates in his wisdom, while stipulating the eligibility criteria for admission, inter alia, required that the candidate concerned should have passed the qualifying Higher Secondary Examination or its equivalent in English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the same sitting. 9. The Director of Technical Education, Assam, in the Information to the Candidates in his wisdom, while stipulating the eligibility criteria for admission, inter alia, required that the candidate concerned should have passed the qualifying Higher Secondary Examination or its equivalent in English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the same sitting. The essentiality of securing at least 50% marks in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the qualifying examination i.e. Higher Secondary Examination of the Council or its equivalent in the same sitting was also prescribed to be a qualifying condition. The percentage was relaxed to 45% and 40% for SC and ST candidates respectively. In other words, a candidate to be eligible for admission to the Engineering Colleges of the State should pass the qualifying examination in English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the same sitting securing 50% marks in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (lesser percentage for the reserved category candidates as referred to above). 10. The Petitioner being obviously conscious of the conditions of eligibility as above offered his candidature and was eventually denied admission by the Board for admittedly not having passed the qualifying examination in English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the same sitting. The plea that the requirement of passing of the four subjects in the qualifying examination in the same sitting as contained in Clause 5(b) of the Information Bulletin is repugnant to the Betterment Scheme for candidates desiring to improve their results in H.S. final examination, is not convincing and is therefore untenable. 11. The criteria of eligibility for admission to the Engineering Colleges, by no means can be branded as irrational or illogical. The admission being to a technical course, the concerned authority has to be conceded a leeway in formulating the precepts of eligibility therefore. Only because the Council has under the Betterment scheme provided an opportunity to the concerned candidates to better their results in the qualifying examination, the Director of Technical Education was in no way under any compulsion to mould the conditions of eligibility inconformity therewith. Moreover, the Petitioner having submitted himself to the prescriptions of eligibility enumerated in Clause 5(b) as above, being fully aware that he did not meet the same in full, cannot be permitted to turn around at this stage and question the same. Moreover, the Petitioner having submitted himself to the prescriptions of eligibility enumerated in Clause 5(b) as above, being fully aware that he did not meet the same in full, cannot be permitted to turn around at this stage and question the same. The Information Bulletin for the Candidates containing the eligibility norms having been circulated for the information of the pubic in general, the authorities concerned justifiably adhered to the same in rejecting the Petitioner's candidature who admittedly was not eligible in the touchstone thereof. The Petitioner in the above factual premise, is estopped from raising such a belated challenge to the validity of the Clause 5(b) of the Information Guidelines. 12. The impugned action of refusing admission to the Petitioner is obviously a timely step to prevent the perpetuation of an apparent error. The Petitioner being admittedly ineligible in terms of the Information Bulletin governing the process of admission to the Engineering Colleges noticed herein above any interference would have the effect of countenancing an inadvertent mistake and a resultant illegality. The Petitioner being a candidate was expectedly aware that in view of the stipulations of Clause 5(b) and (c) of the Information guidelines he was ineligible to compete for admission to the Engineering course as above. 13. The norms contained in the Information bulletin being meant for uniform application, no departure therefrom was permissible and, therefore, strict observance thereof cannot be condemned as illegal, arbitrary, unfair and unjust. The retention of the Petitioner's original documents being a part of the admission process which till 11.7.2006 was considered to be regular under a wrong impression cannot in the above view of the matter entitle him to a writ of mandamus directing his admission in the Assam Engineering College, Guwahati, in the above factual premise. No plea of estoppel is available to the Petitioner in these circumstances. He having taken a chance to get himself admitted in the Engineering course though aware of the restraint enjoined in Clauses 5(b) and (c) of the Information Bulletin, no equitable consideration can be extended to him either. 14. The Respondent authorities in the matter of admission to an academic course are imperatively required to meticulously observe the criteria professed therefore lest the related exercise is fraught with the vice of in determinability and unpredictability paving the way for flexibilities on considerations irrelevant and non-germane. 14. The Respondent authorities in the matter of admission to an academic course are imperatively required to meticulously observe the criteria professed therefore lest the related exercise is fraught with the vice of in determinability and unpredictability paving the way for flexibilities on considerations irrelevant and non-germane. The process of the like to engender public confidence has to be transparent, certain and unambiguous. Tested by the above yardstick, the impugned action cannot be prescribed as illegal, arbitrary, illogical or irrational. The contentions to the contrary therefore fails. The petition being without any merit is therefore dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.