Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 134 (MP)

Hitkarini Law College v. Ashish Kumar Pathak

2008-01-24

ARUN MISHRA, PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS writ appeal has been preferred by the hitkarini Law College aggrieved by the decision of the Single Bench in as much as awarding the compensation of Rs. 20,000/-to the respondent no. 1 as he was given admission illegally in first year of three years law course. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 Ashish pathak appeared in the entrance examination and obtained 37. 4% marks whereas minimum passing marks in the Pre Law Test was 40%. It is also not in dispute that the respondent no. 1 was not entitled for admission as per his performance in pre Law Test. That part of order of Single Bench has attained finality. ( 3. ) THE respondent no. 1 preferred petition praying for the relief to quash the order, annexure P/7, by which his examination form was cancelled by the University on the ground that he failed to enclose the certificate of passing Pre Law Test. An interim order was passed during the pendency of the writ petition pursuant to which respondent no. 1 appeared in the examination of law First year in which he was found guilty of using unfair means and was debarred for three years, is also not in dispute. The learned single Judge held that respondent no. 1 could not have been admitted. He was wrongly admitted by the College. University was directed to consider the case of the petitioner whether it was possible to grant relaxation. Following is the operative portion of the order passed in w. P. No. 1761/05 on 3. 7. 05 : "18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions which are as under in seriatim : (a) The respondent no. 1 University shall consider the case of the petitioner to continue his study by relaxing the rules, if possible, as he has already completed one year. (b) Such a direction is given keeping in view the special features of the case. (c) If any relaxation is granted to the petitioner and if he is allowed to prosecute his study he shall be shifted to some other College which would be bound by the directions of the University. (d) The respondent no. 2 shall pay a compensation of Rs. (c) If any relaxation is granted to the petitioner and if he is allowed to prosecute his study he shall be shifted to some other College which would be bound by the directions of the University. (d) The respondent no. 2 shall pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-to the petitioner in as much as it was obligatory and imperative on the part of the respondent no. 2 institution to apprise the petitioner about his position and not to admit him. (e) The aforesaid amount shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. ( 4. ) AGGRIEVED by the order awarding compensation contained in para 18 (d) the writ appeal has been preferred by the College after rejection of the review application by the learned Single Judge. ( 5. ) SHRI Sheel Nagu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the College has submitted that the respondent no. 1 appeared in the Pre Law Test and he failed to obtain even the passing marks. Thus, he knew it very well that he could not have been admitted in the College still he obtained the admission. He was given provisional admission by the College subject to the approval by the University. Thus, the respondent no. 1 knew it very well that his admission was subject to approval of the University still he decided to pursue the studies at his own risk, appeared in the examination under interim order, was found using unfair means on the exam consequently he was debarred to obtain education for three years. Thus, no loss was caused to the petitioner by the act of the College in giving him provisional admission. He has been debarred due to his own misdeed of using unfair for three years. Thus, liability to pay compensation to respondent no. 1 could not have been saddled upon the Institution. ( 6. ) MS. Amrit Rupraha, has submitted that as the respondent no. 1 has failed to obtain even the minimum passing marks in the Pre Law Test he could not have been admitted. He even did not enclose the mark-sheet of Pre Law Test as he obviously he failed in the examination consequently his form was rightly rejected by the University. ( 7. ) SHRI D. K. Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 submitted that as the respondent no. He even did not enclose the mark-sheet of Pre Law Test as he obviously he failed in the examination consequently his form was rightly rejected by the University. ( 7. ) SHRI D. K. Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 submitted that as the respondent no. 1 had obtained 57% marks in the graduation he was given admission in the college knowing the facts fully well. Thus, compensation has rightly been awarded by the learned Single Judge, no case for interference in the writ appeal is made out. ( 8. ) ENTITLEMENT of the petitioner for compensation has to be judged in the backdrop of the fact that once he has appeared in the Pre law Test it was incumbent upon him to have obtained 40% of the marks which were minimum passing marks for the purpose of admission in the law course. Marks obtained in graduation were of no avail. The petitioner knew it very well that he has failed to clear the Pre Law Test. His name was not in the merit list still he obtained the "provisional admission" in the institution subject to the approval of the University. Thus, the respondent no. 1 knew this fact very well that he was basically not entitled to pursue the course. He was not kept in dark by the Hitkarini law College in any manner. The respondent no. 1 had chosen to obtain study at his peril in view of "provisional admission". ( 9. ) IN the circumstances when the respondent no. 1 knew the facts very well and his admission was clearly provisional. It passes comprehension that how he could have claimed any compensation against the College. Moreover, he appeared in the examination of LL. B. first year under the interim order passed by this court in which he adopted unfair means and was debarred for three years from obtaining education. Thus, no loss was caused by any of the act of the College to the student. He was responsible for the plight in which he had been put himself. Consequently, we set aside the part of the order passed by the single Judge saddling the liability on Hitkarini law College to compensate the respondent no. 1 by making a payment in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ -. ( 10. He was responsible for the plight in which he had been put himself. Consequently, we set aside the part of the order passed by the single Judge saddling the liability on Hitkarini law College to compensate the respondent no. 1 by making a payment in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ -. ( 10. ) RESULTANTLY, we allow the appeal, set aside the direction contained in para 18 (d) for payment of compensation to the respondent no. 1. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs as incurred of the appeal.