Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 608 (ALL)

BHANU PRIYA v. UNION OF INDIA

2007-03-14

ARUN TANDON

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri K.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of respondent No. 1, Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2, Sri Vidyarthi, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3 and Sri Tarun Verma, Advocate on behalf of Respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner after passing her Intermediate examination applied for being considered for admission to B.Com., three years degree course in Chaudhary Mahadev Prasad Degree College (here-in-after referred to as ‘C.M.P.’ Degree College). The College is a constituent College of the University of Allahabad, which has been declared to be a Central University under Act No. 26 of 2005. The College conducted an entrance examination commonly known as C.M.P.A.G.U.T. 2006/07 for admission in various under graduate degree courses including B.Com. 3. The question paper was objective with multiple choice question. The student concerned was required to answer the same on OMR Sheet. The petitioner appeared in the entrance examination she was allotted roll No. 81118 and was issued answer booklet bearing No. 1103. It is on record that the petitioner secured 174 marks in the said examination. The result of the examination was declared in the Newspaper Amar Ujala dated 20.7.2006. A copy of the result has also been enclosed as ‘Annexure 4’ to the writ petition. From the results so declared it is apparent that the candidates with total marks 240 to 290 in the general category were required to report for admission on 1st and 2nd August, 2006. It was provided that in case any seats still remain vacant candidates with maximum marks 189 to 182 (1st wait list) within the General category may report for councilling and admission on 3rd August, 2006 and thereafter the candidates marks 181 to 186 (2nd wait list) may report for councilling and admission on 4th August, 2006. According to the said advertisement the candidates securing less than 176 marks in the examination were not to participate in the councilling and, therefore, not entitled to admission. However, students with total 94 marks have been admitted to B.Com. Course by the College ignoring the claim of the petitioner. 4. According to the said advertisement the candidates securing less than 176 marks in the examination were not to participate in the councilling and, therefore, not entitled to admission. However, students with total 94 marks have been admitted to B.Com. Course by the College ignoring the claim of the petitioner. 4. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 4, it has been stated that since the petitioner had secured 174 marks she was not invited for councilling or admission in view of the publication of the result referred to above. 5. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the C.M.P. Degree College it has been stated that after the on-line admission were closed on 4th August, 2006, in respect of general category candidates certain seats still remained vacant and, therefore, a notice was published on the notice board of the institution informing the students that those still interested in admission to B.A., B.Com. and B.Sc. degree course may approach the College on 11.10.2006. 6. In these set of facts the petitioner who had secured 174 marks prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit the petitioner in B.Com. three years degree course of 2006-07. 7. The claim of the petitioner has been opposed by the College only on the ground that the petitioner has not reported for councilling and admission in response to the notice published in the notice board. It is admitted on record that no such information was made available on line or was otherwise published in newspaper for information to the candidates like the petitioner. It is further admitted on record that on the strength of such notice said to have been published on the notice board of the College (the date of publication whereof has also not been disclosed) nearly 15 students within the general category have been granted admission in B.Com., three years degree course by the College authorities, the last candidate according to the principal of the institution admitted in the said category had secured only 94 marks in the entrance examination. In the opinion of the Court the procedure adopted by the authorities of the College in respect of the admissions granted to the students securing less than 176 marks on the strength of alleged notice to have been published on the notice board of the institution is a farce and an attempt to justify the admission made de hors the merit prepared as per the entrance test. The College authorities have acted arbitrary and have granted admission to student of their choice, on unexplained considerations ignoring the merit list prepared. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kumari Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, 1994 ALJ 1077 the occasions to deal with publications of notices on Notice Board of recognised Institution and has held as follows : “....................................................The advertisement of short-term vacancy on the notice board of the institution, according to me, in fact no notice to the prospective eligible candidates as no prospective candidate is expected to visit each institution to see the notice board for finding out whether any short-term vacancy has been advertised. Since the payment of salary of the teachers appointed against the short-term vacancy is the liability of the State Government, the advertisement of short-term vacancy must conform to the requirement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution which prohibit the State from doing anything whether by making rule or by executive order which would deny equal opportunity to all the citizen. Such kind of notice is an eye-wash for the requirement of Article 16 of the Constitution. This aspect can be examined from another angle. If the notice of short-term vacancy, through the notice board of the institution is accepted, it will throw open the doors for manipulation and nepotism. A management of an institution may or may not notify the short term vacancy on the notice board of the institution and yet may show to the authority that such vacancy has been notified on the notice board of the institution.................................................” 9. Although Article 16 may not be applicable in the facts of the present case but certainly Article 14, applies, therefore, any arbitrary procedure not contemplated by law has to be struck down. 10. Although Article 16 may not be applicable in the facts of the present case but certainly Article 14, applies, therefore, any arbitrary procedure not contemplated by law has to be struck down. 10. This Court cannot approve publication of an undated notice on the notice board for inviting students for admission, who reside at far places and who are not required to visit the Institution every day for making enquiries about their admission. The position has been made worst because of none disclosure of the date on which the notice was in fact published on the College notice board. Consequently, this Court records that the admission granted to the students on the basis of notice published on the notice board de hors the merit list prepared on the basis of the competitive examination, is patently arbitrary and cannot be approved of. 11. The constituent Colleges of a Central University must adopt a procedure for admission to various course which is transparent. They cannot be permitted to play with the career of students nor can they be permitted to pick and choose students for admission de hors the merit. Similarly the University of Allahabad cannot be permitted to ignore such patent irregularities committed by the constituent College. 12. The Vice-Chancellor must, therefore, take appropriate action against the College and the persons who are beneficiary of such illegal act, they must be put to terms so that such illegalities which spoil the entire system of admission in Degree College is not repealed in future. 13. The Court is also conscious of the fact that this order may result in jeopardising the career of the students, who have been granted admission illegally by the College authority, still the Court feels that a time has come for such drastic action being resorted to and any sympathy for the beneficiaries of such fundamentally wrong admissions would be totally misplaced. 14. The University of Allahabad shall, therefore, call for the relevant records from the College concerned and shall examine for itself as to whether the admission granted by the College is not in accordance with the merit prepared in terms of the written examination or not. The College must also be put to terms. 15. Since the petitioner has not been admitted to B.Com. The College must also be put to terms. 15. Since the petitioner has not been admitted to B.Com. (three years degree course) till date even though entitled for such admission in preference to the candidates, who have been granted admission within the category concerned securing lower marks than the petitioner. This Court cannot now direct admission or permit her to appear in the B.Com. examination of the year 2006-07 of the University of Allahabad, which have been already commenced. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another v. D. Suvankar and another, 2007(1) ESC 35 (SC), in the case when a wrong mark sheet was issued, after recording that such mistakes without adversely affected the mind of the candidate of tender age provided for payment of Rs. 20,000/- as cost. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as follows : “16.............................The Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer appear to have taken their jobs casually unmindful of the consequences which result from their negligence acts. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, has to be paid to the respondent No. 1 by the Board out of which it shall recover Rs. 15,000/- from computer firm. It appears that the Board has taken action against the Assistant Examiner and Scrutinizer for their negligence. While affirming action taken against them, we express our displeasure for their careless and negligent acts which has led to unnecessary litigation.” 17. The manner in which the College has jeopardised the academic career of the student also cannot be permitted to go scot free, petitioner has to compensated suitably. 18. This Court, therefore, directs that the College shall pay a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner for spoiling one academic year of her career. Although money cannot be a substitute for the loss of academic career but it will be of some solace to the petitioner. The cost shall be paid by the Principal of the Institution within one month from today to the petitioner through a Bank draft drawn on a nationalised Bank, failing which the District Magistrate, Allahabad shall recover the cost as arrears of land revenue and shall pay the same to the petitioner through a Cheque. Writ petition allowed. ———