Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2427 (ALL)

MANISH KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-07-01

VINEET SARAN

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—On 29.6.2009 after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, the following order had been passed : “Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for Respondent No. 1, Sri Viqar Ahmed Ansari for Respondents No. 2/3 - Priya Darshani College of Computer Science and its Principal (hereinafter referred to as the College) and Sri Neeraj Tiwari for Respondent No. 4-U.P.Technical University (hereinafter referred to as the University). Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. The case of the petitioner is that he had applied for admission in 3rd Semester Course of Computer Science in the Respondent-College. The admitted facts are that admission to the 3rd Semester of the said Course is granted directly to the students who have 60% and above marks in B.Sc. with Maths as a subject. The petitioner approached the Respondent-College and filled up the form in which he had clearly declared that he was awarded 56% marks in B.Sc. with Maths as a subject. The admission form filled up by the petitioner has been filed as Annexure-C.A.2 to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-University, which is the examining body. After the petitioner had filled up the admission form, the respondent-college granted admission to the petitioner and accepted the fees of Rs. 500/- plus Rs. 57,250/- on 10.9.2007 and another amount of Rs. 1,965/- on 14.9.2007. Although it is the case of the petitioner that at the time of granting admission, the respondent-college had taken a donation of Rs. Two lacs from him for granting such admission but since the same is not substantiated by any proof of having paid the said amount, this Court is not taking the same into consideration. After being granted admission, the petitioner attended the classes conducted by the college. However, at the time of the examination he was informed by the college that his admission to the 3rd Semester Course has been rejected by the University on the ground that the petitioner had below 60% marks in the B.Sc. Examination. This writ petition has thus been filed with the prayer to permit the petitioner to appear in the 3rd Semester examination of the said Course conducted by the University through the respondent-College. Examination. This writ petition has thus been filed with the prayer to permit the petitioner to appear in the 3rd Semester examination of the said Course conducted by the University through the respondent-College. The alternate prayer made is to pay compensation of Rs. Ten lacs to the petitioner for the harassment and loss suffered by him. The respondent-college, in its counter affidavit, has stated that since the petitioner did not possess the qualifying 60% marks at the graduation level which was discovered by the respondent-college later on, hence the examination form of the petitioner had been rejected. It is stated by the respondent-college that the college has refunded the fees of Rs. 59,750/- paid by the petitioner and thus the college has no liability. It is not understood as to how the petitioner was granted admission by the respondent-college when the petitioner had clearly declared in the admission form that he had 56% marks in B.Sc. examination. The respondent-college even sent the examination form of the petitioner to the University. The college cannot say that it came to know of the ineligibility of the petitioner for grant of admission after the examination form was rejected by the University, as it was their duty to have checked the eligibility of the petitioner at the time of granting admission. In today’s time when it is difficult for the students to get admission in technical courses, it is very easy for the private colleges to lure the students who may not even possess the requisite eligibility to take admission. This observation is being made after considering the plight of the students in the country who are desperate to get admission in professional courses so that they get proper jobs. Private colleges have a responsibility not to exploit such position of the students and they are obliged to ensure that only qualified students get admission and no extra fee is charged from them. They are not to act as businessmen. They are also not to befool the students by wrongly giving them admission, even though they may not possess the requisite qualification. It is their duty to scrutinise the papers at the time of granting admission and not to first take fees from the students (which may include donation, besides the requisite fees) and then proceed to scrutinise the application form. It is their duty to scrutinise the papers at the time of granting admission and not to first take fees from the students (which may include donation, besides the requisite fees) and then proceed to scrutinise the application form. In the present case, the college did not scrutinise the application form even after granting admission as they claim to have discovered the ineligibility of the petitioner only after the examination form of the petitioner was rejected by the University. The petitioner is not guilty of providing any wrong information to the respondent-college at the time of seeking admission. The petitioner had clearly declared in the admission form that he was awarded 56% marks in the B.Sc. examination. The respondent-college has not been able to show that prior to granting admission they had informed the petitioner that he should possess minimum 60% marks in the qualifying examination. It would have been a different case if the petitioner had provided wrong information to the college that he had over 60% marks in B.Sc. and it was later found that he had less than 60% marks. Here it is a case that the respondent-college has apparently cheated the petitioner by granting him admission, taking fees from him (and possibly some donation also) knowing it fully well that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualification for grant of admission. Besides this, by granting admission to the petitioner in such a manner and later refusing permission to the petitioner to appear in the examination has amounted to loss of one academic year of the petitioner and the situation would not change even if the petitioner has been refunded the fees, which he had deposited after being granted admission. In view of the fact that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification of being granted admission directly in the 3rd Semester Course of Computer Science, the first prayer made in this writ petition, which is to permit him to appear in the examination of the said Course, does not deserve to be granted. In view of the fact that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification of being granted admission directly in the 3rd Semester Course of Computer Science, the first prayer made in this writ petition, which is to permit him to appear in the examination of the said Course, does not deserve to be granted. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case narrated above, and also to check and curb such practice of befooling innocent students, as is being adopted by the respondent-college (and may be some other private institutions also) it would be appropriate that the petitioner is adequately compensated for the loss suffered by him and the fraud played by the college on him by granting him admission in the 3rd Semester Course of Computer Science knowing fully well that he did not have the minimum qualification, and despite that accepting fees from him. In the opinion of this Court, for such conduct of the respondent-college and for loss of one academic year of the petitioner, an amount of Rs. Five lacs would be the adequate compensation, which the respondent-college would be liable to pay to the petitioner. At this stage Sri Ansari, learned counsel for respondent-college stated that he would seek instructions from his clients regarding their willingness to pay a lesser amount as voluntary compensation to the petitioner. Sri Ansari seeks 48 hours time to seek instructions in this regard. Thus, after this order has been passed, the matter is being adjourned for 1.7.2009 to finalise the amount of compensation, which is to be paid to the petitioner.” 2. It was only at the stage when the operative portion of the order was being dictated, Sri Viqar Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent-College had made a request to seek instructions for giving a statement with regard to the compensation which the respondent-College would be willing to pay voluntarily. However, today Sri Ansari states that although he has communicated the contents of the order dated 29.6.2009 to his client but his client has not given any instruction. 3. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the order dated 29.6.2009, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent-College is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks from today. 3. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the order dated 29.6.2009, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent-College is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks from today. In case if the respondent-College (Priya Darshani College of Computer Science) fails to pay the said amount, the petitioner shall have liberty to approach the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar for realizing the said amount from the respondent-College as arrears of the land revenue and pay the same to the petitioner after realizing it from the respondent-College within two months from the date the petitioner approaches the District Magistrate. It is further provided that the respondent-University shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondent-College for granting admission to student who do not possess the requisite qualification. 4. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. ————