Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 432 (GUJ)

Jayshree Dineshkumar v. Gujarat University

2010-09-17

K.M.THAKER, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2010
Judgment S.J. Mukhopadhaya, CJ.—In all these cases, as common question of law is involved and almost common prayers have been made, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners, who are students of B.Ed course in different educational institutions under Gujarat University, have preferred these writ petitions for direction on respondent University not to cancel their admission and to allow them to appear in the forth-coming B.Ed Examination. By an interim order, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the examination, and therefore, at the time of hearing, prayer was also made to direct the Respondent University to publish their results. 3. The Gujarat University issued prospectus calling for applications for admission in B.Ed College(s) by centralized admission. The eligibility, quota fixed for one or other University, other State management quota and other conditions for admissions were mentioned, and such quota as prescribed are shown hereunder. i. Centralized quota - 85% - to be filled up by the University ii. Management quota - 15% - to be filled up by management. 4. The centralized 85% quota was also sub-divided into sub-quotas, as shown hereunder:— a) 93% - from Gujarat University students b) 5% - from other Universities of Gujarat like North Gujarat University, South Gujarat University etc. c) 2% - from other States. 5. 15% management quota can be filled-up by the College(s) by admitting any successful candidate irrespective of the University and State from which such candidates have passed the examination. Against the management quota, the candidates passed from Gujarat University, any other University of the State of Gujarat or from any University of other States, all of them can be admitted. 6. In the present case, the dispute relates to the seats which remained vacant after filling up certain seats by University out of 85% quota by centralized examination. The University filled up number of seats, but large number of seats could not be filled up by the University in absence of eligible students for whom such seats were reserved, such as those who have passed from Gujarat University, other Universities of Gujarat and Universities of other States. The University filled up number of seats, but large number of seats could not be filled up by the University in absence of eligible students for whom such seats were reserved, such as those who have passed from Gujarat University, other Universities of Gujarat and Universities of other States. In this background, the University asked the Colleges to fill-up the rest of the seats, which remained vacant out of 85% quota, pursuant to a common entrance test, for which the University published a notice on 19th August, 2009 in different Newspapers including Gujarat Samachar, Sandesh and Divya Bhaskar. In the said advertisement, no stipulation was made showing quota of candidates passed from Gujarat University or other Universities of Gujarat or other States. The English version of the advertisement dated 18th August, 2009, published in the Newspaper on 19th August, 2009 reads as follows:— “Gujarat University [B.Ed Admission Year 2009-10] The admission process for admissions to the B.Ed courses in the Self Finance (other than granted) colleges affiliated with the Gujarat University on the vacant seats are in progress. Those students who have not obtained the admission may contact the concerned college directly with the original slip of admission form and obtain the admission. Those students who have not filled in the admission form they may obtain the University B.Ed admission forms from the College and submit in the same college and obtain the admission. Those students who have to get the PEC, they may get the PEC issued within stipulated time period from the University and submit with the form in the college, the students will have to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards the first term fees in the concerned college. The minimum qualification for admission is graduation or post graduation with 45% and for SC ST category 40% marks will be the minimum qualifications. In this manner the admissions granted by the colleges will be considered granted only after approved by the B.Ed Cell. The responsibility of admissions will be of the concerned college. The last date for admission at this state will be 02/09/09.” 7. Having shown the minimum qualification for admission for General, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories, a large number of candidates including the petitioners who have passed Graduation from other States applied. The responsibility of admissions will be of the concerned college. The last date for admission at this state will be 02/09/09.” 7. Having shown the minimum qualification for admission for General, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories, a large number of candidates including the petitioners who have passed Graduation from other States applied. The Colleges, second Respondent in most of the petitions, were asked to fill-up the vacancies on their own by directly entertaining the application for admission, if any, received from the concerned students desirous of availing the admission. Therefore, those who applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 19th August, 2009, Respondent colleges took admission of candidates, including the petitioners. 8. The petitioners and other students got them admitted, submitted requisite forms for getting themselves registered for admission in B.Ed course, their forms for registration were forwarded by second Respondent College (s) including the forms of petitioners to the first Respondent University. The petitioners were allowed to attend the B.Ed Course classes and completed first term. 9. The B.Ed Course is of one year duration and the final examination for the said Course is originally conducted by the University in the month of April or near about. While the petitioners were awarded Admit Cards for appearing in the semester examination, the University having accepted the fees and forms, opposed their appearance on the ground that they are excess to the out-side State quota (2%). 10. The main plea taken by the petitioners is that the University having failed to fill-up total 85% of centralized admission quota, they have asked the colleges to admit eligible students, who applied pursuant to advertisement dated 19th August, 2009, and after admission University cannot deny the petitioners from appearing in the examination on the ground that they are excess to 2% quota of other State. Learned Counsel would further contend that in absence of any quota mentioned in the advertisement dated 19th August, 2009, the authorities cannot now insist upon quota. When the management was allowed to admit students who applied pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid, it was open to the management to admit students on the basis of merit, without resorting to any quota or sub-quota as prescribed for 85% centralized admission quota, particularly when University failed to get such number of students while they started process of admission and completed on 3rd August, 2009. Reliance was placed on numerous decisions of the Supreme Court to suggest that the petitioners have the right to continue, but it is not necessary to refer all those cases, as they do not relate to admission, if any made excess to alleged quota. 11. The colleges have supported the petitions and no opposition was made to the prayer. The facts have also not been disputed by either of the Respondents. They have taken the plea that all the petitioners were eligible having obtained the minimum requisite qualification as per advertisement dated 19th August, 2009. The colleges have taken a specific plea that sub-quota fixed by the University was not applicable in the present case, especially when the University having failed to obtain students against such sub-quota out of the centralized admission, and thereafter having asked the colleges to fill up the seats out of the students applied pursuant to the advertisement. 12. The stand of the University is that the students are from other States and petitioners are excess to 2% quota. A large number of students, say about 155 persons, have been admitted pursuant to the advertisement, though the colleges informed that only 60 students were admitted pursuant to the said advertisement. No specific affidavit has been filed by the University to show that who are the students so admitted, and whose names have been intimated by the colleges. 13. Learned Counsel for the University relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and ors. vs. Renuka Singla and ors. - AIR 1994 SC 595 and State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and ors. - AIR 1992 SC 1926 and submitted that the petitioners cannot derive advantage of appearance in the examination pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, having them admitted excess to the quota. 14. We have heard Counsel for the parties, noticed the rival contentions and also perused the records. 15. It is not in dispute that after admission of the students in the colleges, the respective colleges forwarded fees with registration form (in one of the petitions, SCA No. 1593 of 2010, it appears that fees were also accepted on 20th November, 2009), but the order of refusal to allow the students to continue and to appear in the examination was communicated to the colleges between December, 2009-February, 2010. In the meantime, students were allowed to appear in the examination and were permitted to answer in Gujarati or Hindi or English language. That means no bar was imposed for admission to students passing from other States. It is also evident from the 2% quota fixed by the University for centralized admission, and no such restriction of admission was imposed on the colleges for their admission against management quota. The main object of the University, as appearing from the prospectus of 2009-10, is to give preference to the local students over the outsiders. Such action has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e giving advantage to the local students, but it does not debar the students passed from other States either in the matter of admission or appearing in the examination, who may write their answer either in Hindi or English language, if they do not have knowledge of Gujarati. 16. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have already completed one year and appeared in the examination pursuant to the interim order, therefore, they have prayed to direct the University to publish their results. 17. We have noticed that the University has failed to fill-up seats of all the sub-quotas out of 85% quota. They have not intimated the colleges that what are the remaining vacant sub-quotas i.e. the vacant seats for students passed from Gujarat University, or the vacant seats remained to be filled from other Universities of Gujarat and the vacant seats remained to be filled up with students from other States. In absence of such intimation given by the University to the colleges and no such quota having been prescribed in the advertisement dated 19th August, 2009, if pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid, students having minimum qualifying marks have been admitted on the vacant seats by one or other colleges, including the petitioners, the Respondents at this stage cannot raise objection to their admission on the ground that they are excess to the quota prescribed, and thereby University cannot refuse their registration. 18. For the reason aforesaid, while we direct the University to register the forms of all the petitioners, we also direct them to publish the results of the petitioners and such other similarly situated students, who have been allowed to appear in the last semester examination pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. 18. For the reason aforesaid, while we direct the University to register the forms of all the petitioners, we also direct them to publish the results of the petitioners and such other similarly situated students, who have been allowed to appear in the last semester examination pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. The results should be published within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It should be forwarded to the respective colleges for information of the students. All these writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.