Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 709 (BOM)

Balasaheb s/o. Datta Jiglekar v. Union of India

2010-05-07

P.V.HARDAS, S.V.GANGAPURWALA

body2010
JUDGMENT S. V. GANGAPURWALA,J.:- Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The conflict between the provisions of the Veterinary Council of India (Standards of Veterinary Education Degree Course B.V.Sc. & A.H.) Regulation, 1993 and Veterinary Academic Regulations (2002) has given rise to the present petition. 3. The petitioner herein was admitted on 12/08/1998 to the course of Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences & Animal Husbandry for the academic year 1998-99. 4. The petitioner passed B.V.Sc.&A.H. Examination in August, 2008 i.e. after completion of 10 years from the date of his admission to said course. The petitioner completed 10 years on 12/08/2008, still petitioner was allowed to take admission for final year examination commencing from 14th August, 2008 i.e. after ten years from the date of admission. The petitioner passed said examination. Thereafter, on 15/01/2009 the petitioner came to be provisionally enrolled with Maharashtra Veterinary Council, Nagpur, on 19/01/2009 petitioner joined internship and completed the same on 18/07/2009. 5. On or about 18/07/2009 the Associate Dean of the College for the first time informed the petitioner that he will not be allowed to appear in final Viva-Voce examination of internship programme on the ground that, the petitioner did not complete degree course within ten years from the date of his admission, as per academic regulation for B. V. Sc. & A.H. No.9(18) of the University. This action is impugned by the petitioner in the present petition. 6. Shri. Talekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised that the regulations framed in the year 1993 did not prescribe any maximum period of time, within which the student has to clear all the semesters. At the time when petitioner took admission, none of University Rules/Regulations required that the student must pass Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences & Animal Husbandry course within ten years from the date of admission. According to him, the Regulation 9(18) framed by the Maharashtra Animal & Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur under the Maharashtra Animal & fishery Sciences University Act, 1998 prescribing minimum period for completion of course i.e. within ten years is not in conformity with the Veterinary Council of India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education Course B. V. Sc. & A.H.) Regulation 1993 and therefore, ultra vires the Regulation 1993. & A.H.) Regulation 1993 and therefore, ultra vires the Regulation 1993. He further submitted that the Regulation 1993 enacted by the Veterinary Council of India with the previous approval of the Central Government shall prevail over the academic Regulations (2002) framed by the Maharashtra Animal & Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur. According to him, the said Veterinary academic Regulations (2002) cannot be made applicable to the petitioner who had taken admission to the course much prior to the commencement of the said Regulation (2002). 7. It will also be worthwhile to refer to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Veterinary Council of India. In the affidavit also the council has clearly accepted that they have no where prescribe the maximum duration, for completion of the course by the student. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 & 5 i.e. the University and the College submitted that, they have power to frame the Rules. According to him, at the time when the petitioner had taken the admission for the academic year 1998-1999 in the respondent No.5 College, at that time, the said college was under control of the Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani, and after the establishment of Respondent No.4 University, it came under the control of the respondent No.4 University with effect from 04/04/2001. The Executive Council of the respondent No.4 University frames Statute in exercise of the powers conferred on them Under Section 34(1) read with Section 33 of the Maharashtra Animal & fishery Science University Act, the Veterinary academic Regulations (2002) were framed and they were made applicable to all the students irrespective of their year of admission. As per Regulation 9(18) of the said Regulations, the maximum period for completion of B. V. Sc. A.H. Degree programme shall be ten years from the date of admission of the student. It was further contended that as per letter dated 23/11/2008 issued by the Veterinary Council of India, where no specific Regulation/guide-lines have been prescribed by the Council, may be dealt as per the University Rules/Regulations in-force, and as there are no rules regarding the maximum duration within which the course should be completed in the Regulation of 1993, the academic council has rightly incorporated the maximum duration for the completion of the course. 9. We have heard the respective counsels at length. 9. We have heard the respective counsels at length. It will be worthwhile to consider that, even after the completion often years, the petitioner was given admission, for final year Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry Examination commencing from 14/08/2008 i.e. after completion of ten years from the date of admission. Not only he was allowed to appear for the final year after lapse often years, but thereafter, he was allowed to complete the internship. It is only when he was to appear for final Viva-voce examination of internship programme, the petitioner was prevented from appearing on the count that he has not completed degree course within ten years. 10. Once the petitioner was allowed to appear for the final examination after completion often years and also subsequently allowed to complete his internship, then it is too late in the day for the respondents to contend that as the petitioner has not completed his course within ten years he would not be allowed to appear for the final Viva-voce examination. It is not the case that the petitioner by playing fraud continued with the course after 10 years. Once petitioner is allowed to complete the course, then the respondent would now be estopped from contending otherwise. The reference to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of "Shri. Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurushetra, reported in AIR 1976 S.C. 376 " would be relevant, wherein the Apex Court in para No.6 of its judgment has held that, ".........It is, therefore, manifest that once the appellant was allowed to take examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute 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 applicant permission to appear.........." The similar view has been taken by this Court in case of "Dileep Vs. Marathwada University, reported in 1984 Mh. L.R. Page 454" wherein in para No.31 of the said judgment it is observed as under :"In the modem law, the principle of equitable estoppel has been given a wider scope and may have its operation depending on the exigencies and circumstances of a particular case. Marathwada University, reported in 1984 Mh. L.R. Page 454" wherein in para No.31 of the said judgment it is observed as under :"In the modem law, the principle of equitable estoppel has been given a wider scope and may have its operation depending on the exigencies and circumstances of a particular case. In our opinion, where in an educational matter the career of a young student is involved, it would be important to bear in mind this principle in order to supplement the ends of justice in addition to the rigid rules of law, ordinances and other statutes. In view of this, the authorities which were cited before us and the ratio deducible there form supports the contention of the petitioner that the University is estopped on the principle of equitable estoppel and it appears to be well-founded and, therefore, correct. " 11. In this particular case, the petitioner was not only allowed to appear for the examination after completion often years, but thereafter, he was allowed to complete his internship. As such now, they would not have any authority to refrain him from appearing for final viva-voce examination. As such, the petition succeeds on this count itself, as the petition succeeds on the ground of estoppel, we are not examining the other challenges raised by the petitioner regarding applicability of the academic Regulations (2002). 12. In the light of the above, we direct the respondent Nos.4 & 5 to allow the petitioner to appear for the Viva-Voce examination and to confer Bachelor Degree in Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry on the petitioner, if otherwise he is entitled to the same. 13. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.