Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 161 (JK)

Durgesh Kumari v. University Of Jammu

2009-04-09

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2009
1. The petitioner has pursued the B.Ed Course in the Saraswati College of Education, Jammu, has taken the examination but her result has been withheld. Her eligibility to the B.Ed. Course has been questioned. For pursuing B.Ed a candidate must possess Bachelors degree, which shall be recognized by the University of Jammu. The petitioner possesses the degree awarded to her by the Himachal Pradesh University under Regulation 8.81, which is not recognized in the light of the notification dated 09-08-2003 of the University of Jammu. The petitioner has been informed vide communication no. B.Ed/Regn/06/180 dated 31-07-2006 issued by the respondent no.3 that her degree not being equivalent to B.A three years degree course of the University of Jammu, so was not eligible to get admission, therefore, her result cannot be declared. 2. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court seeking issuance of direction for quashing aforesaid communication and also for issuance of command against the respondents to declare the petitioners result of B.Ed. 3. The moot point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner can be deprived of reaping the fruits of her toil for pursuing the B.Ed Course that too at Jammu for a period of about ten month, when she has taken the examination, based on proper admit card/roll number slip issued by the University in her favour. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no fraud or concealment is attributable to the petitioner. She has produced the requisite certificate of graduation before the College authorities and the College authorities have also processed the papers for registration. In the admission process, her papers have been scrutinized and thereafter for pursuing the course the College has been allotted to her, Either at the very beginning, she should not have been admitted or in the alternative, after the admission, her candidature should have been cancelled within a reasonable time, which has not been done. Now, at this stage, when she has pursued and completed the course, she could not be made to suffer. 5. Counsel for the University projected that the petitioner was neither selected nor counseling was done by the University. She has been admitted by the College authorities as against the Management quota, it was for the College authorities to look into the eligibility of the petitioner. 6. 5. Counsel for the University projected that the petitioner was neither selected nor counseling was done by the University. She has been admitted by the College authorities as against the Management quota, it was for the College authorities to look into the eligibility of the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the College, i.e. respondent no.4, would contend that it is under the supervision of the University, the admissions are granted and it is the University who after scrutinizing the papers has issued the roll number slip and has also permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination. Therefore, no fault is attributable to the College authorities. 7. Considered. 8. Ineligibility of the candidate on the question of possessing a requisite Bachelors degree equivalent to the three years Bachelors degree of the University must be recognized by the University of Jammu. Petitioner being the resident of State of Himachal Pradesh, possessed the degree awarded to her under Statute/Regulation 8.81 not recognized by the University of Jammu, should not have been admitted to B.Ed Course. Intentionally or unintentionally, lapse on the part of the College authorities or by the University authorities for the reason best known to them has given a chance to the petitioner to pursue and to take the final examination of B.Ed Course. At a belated stage when the result was to be declared, the objection about the eligibility has been raised. It is quite disgusting that the respondents at the relevant point of time i.e. when the admission process had been initiated, have shut their eyes in not pointing out the ineligibility of the petitioner. Such situations are required to be discouraged. The respondents are required to be more vigilant and cautious while initiating and completing the process of admission so as to avoid admission/entry of any ineligible candidate. 9. The admission followed by completion of Course short of declaration of the result will work harshly against the petitioner when she has spent the period prescribed for the course, away from her State in i.e. the State of Jammu & Kashmir, at Jammu. The expenses incurred, crucial year spent and being a girl remaining away from her home with an object of obtaining the B.Ed, degree cannot be deprived of knowing the result, when equities lean in her favour. The expenses incurred, crucial year spent and being a girl remaining away from her home with an object of obtaining the B.Ed, degree cannot be deprived of knowing the result, when equities lean in her favour. Though the petitioner too should have been vigilant but her part is pardonable because she possessed the B.A degree under the Regulation 8.81 recognized by the University of Himachal Pradesh and may be recognized by some other Universities. Therefore, her bonafide cannot be doubted. 10. During the course of arguments Mr. Waseem, counsel appearing for the University has produced the requisite record pertaining to the admission and registration of the candidates who were pursuing B.Ed Course in Saraswati College of Education, Jammu wherein the eligibility of the petitioner has been kept under question mark and on such count her result has been withheld, but that is not enough. It should have been done at the stage of completion of the admission process. Until the time of declaration of the results, the respondents have slept over the matter. 11. In the judgment captioned as Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati & Anr, reported in (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases, Page 5, it has been laid down that:- "High Courts should desist from permitting ineligible student to undertake Board or University examination as the same amounts to abuse of the process." 12. At the same time, it has been further laid down that:- "Occasional aberrations whereby ineligible students are permitted, under Court orders, to undertake Board and/or University examinations, such aberration should not be treated as precedent. Whenever such orders are passed, same shall be justified on principle of precept." 13. In the judgment captioned as Rajinder Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University & Ors, reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court, Page 1448, similar question arose for consideration. In the reported judgment. The admission to B.E degree Course of Karnataka University for the academic year 1981-82, the eligibility to B.E degree Course was that a candidate should have passed two years Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board Bangalore or the examination held by any other Board or University, recognized as equivalent to it. In the reported judgment. The admission to B.E degree Course of Karnataka University for the academic year 1981-82, the eligibility to B.E degree Course was that a candidate should have passed two years Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board Bangalore or the examination held by any other Board or University, recognized as equivalent to it. The students who have passed Higher Secondary Education examination held by Secondary Education Board Rajasthan were not eligible as the said board examination was not recognized as equivalent by the Karnataka University to the Pre-University Examination held by the University Board Bangalore. In the said judgment, it has been held:- "It is for the University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any ex-pertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should not disturb the decision taken by the University," 14. It has again been held: "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 managements of these Engineering Colleges." 15. In the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2008 (II) SLJ, while relying on me judgment reported in 1989 (I) SCC 399, it has been held: "Once a candidate has not obtained admission by way of fraud and concealment of facts from the authorities, he/she shall not be made to suffer by concealing his/her admission after joining the classes for the mistake committed by the authorities as has been held by the Apex Court in case of Ashchand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur & Ors." 16. The ratio laid clown in the aforesaid judgments covers the case of the petitioner. The ratio laid clown in the aforesaid judgments covers the case of the petitioner. The aberration, though in principle irreconcilable, but as a matter of exception in the stated facts and reasons has to be reconciled so as to save the precious time which the petitioner has spent in pursuing the course that too away from her home State and when fraud is not attributable to her. It shall not work as a precedent but rule of equity demands to overlook the negligence and lapse of the respondents so as to ensure that the course pursued by the petitioner does not go waste. 17. It is an appropriate case where the word of caution is required to be issued to the authorities (concerned) connected with the process of admission of any course. Respondents must bear it in mind that; i) By accommodating an ineligible candidate, the eligible candidate gets excluded, such accommodation shall be avoided; ii) Henceforth respondents shall ensure that in the process of selection followed by admission to any course, all objections regarding ineligibility and shortcomings shall be taken care of latest up to one month of the completion of the admission process; and iii) The respondents shall not feel precluded in taking objections and canceling the admission at any stage, if found to be secured by fraud or concealment attributable to the candidate. 18. The instant case being an exceptional one, where no fraud or concealment is attributable to the petitioner, is required to be treated differently. Therefore, the respondents (University) shall declare the result of the petitioner within two weeks. The result of the petitioner under direction in sealed cover having been produced, shall along with the record produced by the appearing counsel for the University be returned to counsel for the University so as to enable the University to do the needful within two weeks from today. Disposed of as above along with connected CMP.