Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1117 (PNJ)

Giyarshi v. Kurukshetra University

2010-03-09

PERMOD KOHLI

body2010
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1 Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra issued prospectus for the State Level Common Entrance Test for admission to B.Ed. (Regular) Course, 2008-09. The eligibility conditions prescribed in the prospectus were as under :- "ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS Candidates with at least 45% marks either in the Bachelors Degree and/or in the Masters degree of Kurukshetra University/M.D. University/Ch. Devi Lal University/B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya or any other qualification equivalent thereto are eligible for the admission to the programme. Note : (1) There shall be no rounding off percentage of marks of the qualifying examination from 0.5% and above to next higher number for determining eligibility i.e. 44.5% and above will not be rounded to 45%. (2) Minimum pass marks are required in case of SC Candidates. (3) 40% marks are required in case of totally blind candidates." Petitioner who belongs to B.C. category passed her graduation i.e. B.A. by securing 527 out of 1200 marks having 43.91 percentage in the year 2004. Even though, petitioner was ineligible having less than 45% marks prescribed as the eligibility condition in the prospectus, applied for entrance test by filling the necessary form and payment of the prescribed fee. She was issued admit card for appearing in the entrance test to be held on 18.8.2008. Petitioner participated in the entrance test. On declaration of the result, she secured 39728 rank. Petitioner appeared in the 1st counselling and was granted admission in the respondent No. 3 college by the university vide Annexure P-5. On being allotted the college, petitioner approached the respondent No. 3 college and deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 38,500/-. Petitioner was admitted to the course. She continued to attend the classes. On completion of the course when the petitioner was to appear in the final examination on 30.6.2009, she was refused roll number on the ground of ineligibility to take admission in B.Ed. course having less than the prescribed qualifying marks for the common entrance test. The case of the petitioner is that she never misrepresented any fact at the time of filling up the form she truly and correctly mentioned the percentage of marks secured by her in the examination (B.A.). The university did not reject her application on account of ineligibility rather the petitioner was issued the admit card and allowed to participate in the entrance test. The university did not reject her application on account of ineligibility rather the petitioner was issued the admit card and allowed to participate in the entrance test. It is further stated that the petitioner got admission in the very 1st counselling and allotted respondent No. 3 college. Petitioner approached respondent No. 3 with all documents for verification and on verification of her documents, she was granted admission by respondent No. 3 college. Petitioner paid Rs. 38,500/- as fee to the respondent No. 3 college and was admitted to the course. She studied for the entire year and it was only at the time of examination that the petitioner was prevented from appearing in the examination. Vide interim order dated 2.6.2009 petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination, which was scheduled to be held on 30.6.2009 subject to outcome of the writ petition. On the strength of the interim order the petitioner was issued provisional roll number slip and she appeared in the examination. The result of the examination has been declared and the petitioner has successfully passed to examination. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, if, the petitioner would have been stopped at the time of admission itself, petitioner would not have spent the money and wasted one complete year. It is, accordingly, submitted that the respondents are estopped from declaring the petitioner ineligible at this belated stage, the admission having granted to her without any misrepresentation or fraud. 2 Dr. Balram Gupta, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-university has vehemently argued that the petitioner was ineligible at the time of participation in the entrance test as also admission to the course. His further submission is that mere application in the entrance test is no guarantee for admission nor does it confer any right upon the petitioner to seek admission without eligibility. His further contention is that even grant of admission and allocation of college also does not confer any indefeasible right in the petitioner to complete the course. To support her contention, reference is made to instructions for the candidates incorporated in the prospectus. Condition 8 and 14 of the prospectus are relied upon. The same are reproduced hereunder :- "8. The candidature of all candidates appearing in the Common Entrance Test for B.Ed. (Regular) (CET B.Ed.-2008) shall be purely provisional. To support her contention, reference is made to instructions for the candidates incorporated in the prospectus. Condition 8 and 14 of the prospectus are relied upon. The same are reproduced hereunder :- "8. The candidature of all candidates appearing in the Common Entrance Test for B.Ed. (Regular) (CET B.Ed.-2008) shall be purely provisional. If on verification at a later stage, it is found that a candidate does not fulfill the eligibility conditions, his/her candidature will be cancelled and he/she will have no claim whatsoever against the university/college and the fee deposited by him/her is liable to be forfeited. The candidates are, therefore, advised in their own interest to go through the eligibility conditions carefully and make sure of their eligibility before appearing in the examination. 14. The result of Common Entrance Test (CET B.Ed.-2008) shall, ipso facto, not entitle a candidate for admission to B.Ed. (Regular) Course. It will be the responsibility of the candidate to make sure of his/her eligibility for admission before applying for Common Entrance Test." 3 Condition 8 referred to above clearly provides that the candidature for appealing in the common entrance test for the course shall be purely provisional and if, on verification at a later stage, it is found that a candidate does not fulfill the eligibility conditions, his/her candidature will be cancelled. Similarly, condition 14 further provides that even the result of common entrance test shall not entitle a candidate for admission to B.Ed. course and it is the responsibility of the candidate to make sure of his/her eligibility for admission. In short the submission is that the petitioner was required to ascertain her eligibility in accordance with the prospectus and if, she has applied and appeared in the entrance test without being eligible, no right is created or conferred upon her to complete the course merely on account of grant of admission by the university. 4 In addition to the above submissions, university has also shifted the responsibility of wrongful admission of the petitioner upon respondent No. 3- college. The allotment letter (Annexure P-5) contains following conditions:- "Admission will be valid only after required conditions. 3. 4 In addition to the above submissions, university has also shifted the responsibility of wrongful admission of the petitioner upon respondent No. 3- college. The allotment letter (Annexure P-5) contains following conditions:- "Admission will be valid only after required conditions. 3. The college will allow admission after verifying the original documents for the proof of date of birth, qualifying exam marks, admit card and rank card." 5 It is further submitted on behalf of the university that it was the obligation of the college to have verified the original documents to ascertain the eligibility of the candidate at the time of admission. The college has failed in its duty and granted admission to the petitioner, may be in connivance with the sole object of extracting fee from the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the university the college did not inform the university about the ineligibility of the petitioner and admitted her to the course by receiving the fee from her. 6 Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 college has, however, attempted to blame the university for the admission of the petitioner. It is stated on behalf of the college that the petitioners application for admission to entrance test was to be screened by the university, however, the university instead of declaring the petitioner ineligible issued the admit card for entrance examination and permitted her to appear. Not only that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the counselling and allotted the college. The college has, however, nowhere mentioned about its responsibility to verify the eligibility of the petitioner at time of granting admission in terms of the condition No. 3 in the allotment letter, referred to above. Learned counsel appearing for the college has also not been able to justify the admission of the petitioner on account of her ineligibility. 7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8 It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was ineligible at the time of entrance test as also the admission to the course in the respondent No. 3-college. The university did not screen the application of the petitioner properly at the time of issuing the admit card for entrance test, at the time of counselling and permitted the petitioner to appear in the entrance test and even granted her the admission. The university did not screen the application of the petitioner properly at the time of issuing the admit card for entrance test, at the time of counselling and permitted the petitioner to appear in the entrance test and even granted her the admission. It is nobodys case that the petitioner at any stage either concealed her percentage of marks or misrepresented in any manner. The university as also the college with open eyes permitted the petitioner to participate in the entrance test and admitted her to course. The petitioner has completed the course without any inhibition or objection from the college. She was prevented from appearing in the examination at the end of the course. It is this action of the university which has been impugned in the present petition. The Honble Supreme Court in case of Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra reported as AIR 1976 SC 376, considered the similar issue and held as under : "It is, therefore, manifest that once the appellant was allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statue which empowers the university to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the appellant permission to appear. 9 There was ample time and opportunity for the university authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstances, therefore, if the university authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission from contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part I Examination in April, 1972, then by force of the University Statue the university had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant." 10 There is no dispute that there has been lapse on the part of the petitioner, the university as also the college. However, in view of the clear and specific stipulation in the allotment letter i.e. Condition No. 3 (Annexure P-5) it was the duty of the college to have verified the eligibility of the petitioner at the item of grant of admission. It seems that college granted admission to ineligible petitioner for the sake of fee and neither rejected the candidature of the petitioner nor informed the university. The college has failed to discharge its onerous duties and admitted the ineligible candidate and permitted her to complete the course. It seems that college granted admission to ineligible petitioner for the sake of fee and neither rejected the candidature of the petitioner nor informed the university. The college has failed to discharge its onerous duties and admitted the ineligible candidate and permitted her to complete the course. At this belated stage, when the petitioner has complete the course, she cannot be prevented from appearing in the examination notwithstanding her ineligibility. In view of the ratio of the judgment in case of Shri Krishna (supra) the permission granted to the petitioner to appear in the examination vide order dated 2.6.2009 is thus confirmed. 11 Respondent No. 3 college has failed to discharge its obligation just for the sake of the fee. It has pocketed Rs. 38,500/- by allowing the petitioner to seek admission and complete the course. The college needs to be penalized appropriately. The college is, thus, directed to deposit the fee charged from the petitioner with the respondent-university within a period of two weeks, failing which the university shall be entitled to recover the amount from the respondent No. 3 college. 12 Petition disposed of. Petition disposed of.