Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2438 (HP)

Rohit Kumar v. H. P. Takniki Shiksha Board

2011-09-01

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT: Deepak Gupta, J 1. This case is another classic example of the manner in which colleges which are supposed to be engaged in the noble task of imparting education have become nothing more than teaching shops. These so called colleges are least concerned with the standard of teaching or the standard of the students but are only concerned with the collection of huge amounts of money as fees. 2. The petitioner was admitted to the 3rd semester for Diploma in Electrical Engineering when he had not cleared his 10+2 examination and had a compartment in one subject. He was granted admission by respondent No.2 Sai Ram Education Trust’s Group of Institutions, in May, 2010. Only candidates who have cleared 10+2 (vocational) with 60% marks or above or are I.T.I. pass are eligible to get admission in 3rd semester of the diploma in engineering courses. The petitioner was not eligible since he had not cleared his 10+2. He was, however, granted admission and had to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of registration charges. 3. When the examinations were to take place in December the petitioner field the present writ petition praying that respondents be directed to grant him registration, roll number and he may be permitted to sit in the examination. On 9.12.2010 when the petition was taken up interim directions were issued permitting the petitioner to appear in the 3rd semester of Diploma in Electrical Engineering. A direction was also issued to the Secretary, H.P.Takniki Shiksha Board and the Director of the Sai Ram Education Trust to appear in person. The second respondent did not care to appear in person and therefore, bailable warrants had to be issued to secure his presence. 4. The Secretary of the Board informed the Court that it is the duty of the Board only to conduct the examination and to verify the eligibility of the candidates admitted through the Board. According to him as far as the students admitted under the management quota are concerned the eligibility is to be verified by the management only. It was only at the stage when examination forms were sent that the respondent No.1 found out that the petitioner was not eligible for admission as he had not cleared his 10+2 examination. According to him as far as the students admitted under the management quota are concerned the eligibility is to be verified by the management only. It was only at the stage when examination forms were sent that the respondent No.1 found out that the petitioner was not eligible for admission as he had not cleared his 10+2 examination. This Court issued the following directions on 16.12.2010:- “There will be a direction to the third respondent to file an affidavit as to what are the steps taken by the Directorate for over-seeing the admission procedure by the private Polytechnical Institutions. The third respondent will specifically state in the affidavit as to how many private Polytechnical Institutions in the State have admitted students without prescribed qualifications and later they have been granted relaxation by the Directorate. If such relaxation was granted, what is the enabling provision for the Directorate to relax the qualifications for admission since the candidate is bound to possess the minimum required qualifications for admission and the same cannot be obtained after admission. The affidavit, as above, shall be filed within three weeks. There will also be a direction to the Secretary of the first respondent to file affidavit in respect of the instances, which have come to his notice in the past two years within a month.” 5. Thereafter a report was submitted in Court. It was stated in the report that there are 39 polytechnics in H.P. out of which 9 are in the government sector and 30 in the private sector. For admission to the first year, admission is through an entrance test and the essential qualification is that the candidate should be a matriculate. However, there is a provision for lateral entry into the 3rd semester in the case of those students who have passed 10+2 vocational or those possessing ITI certificate. Such admissions are done by centralized counseling. However, in the relevant year since many seats were lying vacant the Government permitted the institutions to make lateral entry of those students who are in the ITI stream who have appeared in the final examination on provisional basis. As far as 15% seats under management quota is concerned these also must comply with the minimum eligibility criteria. However, there is no mechanism to ascertain whether the admissions are being done as per the Government instructions. 6. As far as 15% seats under management quota is concerned these also must comply with the minimum eligibility criteria. However, there is no mechanism to ascertain whether the admissions are being done as per the Government instructions. 6. In the present case, respondent No.2 college had given admission to a student in May 2009, when he had not obtained the qualification of 10+2. Even as per the prospectus of respondent No.2 college the minimum qualification is 10+2 and there is no provision for relaxation of the qualification. The Court was informed that a large number of private institutions were admitting students who did not possess the technical qualification. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court issued the following directions on 28.2.2011:- “There will be a direction to the Director of Technical Education to constitute a special team to inspect all the thirty private polytechnics in the State of Himachal Pradesh and submit a report as to whether during the past three years the admissions made under the management quota were in accordance with regulations and Government instruction. The Director will also file an affidavit as to what is the action the Directorate has to take in a case where the managements do not follow the instruction issued by the Government or the Directorate in the matter of qualification. Once a qualification is prescribed for admission to a course, is it a healthy practice to relax that qualification will also be explained in the affidavit. The Director will also explain in the process of inspection as above, whether the Management has admitted the students beyond the permitted quota of 15%. The report on these aspects shall be filed by the Director on or before 26th March, 2011. Post this case on 28th March, 2011. The Director of Technical Educational and the Secretary of the Takniki Shiksha Board will also be present before this Court to assist the Court on that date.” 7. Report has been filed. This report make shocking reading. It is indicated that the private polytechnic colleges have made admission of as many as 24 candidates who were not eligible for such admission. Out of these candidates, 22 candidates did not meet the requisite qualifications for being admitted to the diploma courses. It is also surprising to note that the State has been granting relaxation during the last three academic session in the admission criteria also. 8. Out of these candidates, 22 candidates did not meet the requisite qualifications for being admitted to the diploma courses. It is also surprising to note that the State has been granting relaxation during the last three academic session in the admission criteria also. 8. The reply of respondent No.2 makes very interesting reading. According to respondent No.2 the petitioner did not disclose to the college the fact that he had a compartment and had not cleared the 10+2. This submission, to say the least, is devoid of any merit. Is it not the duty of the admitting institution/college to verify the certificates or marks of the candidate? How could the college has granted admission to the candidate in the third semester only on the basis of his mark sheet of 10+1 without verifying the marks obtained in 10+2 ? It is obvious that the college authorities are now telling lies and are trying to shift burden upon the student. It is also obvious that just to make money admission was given to a person who was not eligible. 9. However, the point which arises is whether the young student should suffer because of the greed, avarice and dishonesty of the college. I am of the considered view that the petitioner should not suffer and therefore, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner and now treat him as a regular student. This is being done as an exception since the petitioner has now completed more than one year of his studies in the college. The present judgement shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter. 10. I am of the considered view that the matter cannot be simply closed. Directions must be issued to the respondents to ensure that such illegal and fraudulent activities are not permitted to take place in future. Therefore, respondent No.1 H.P.Takniki Shiksha Board through its Secretary and the State of H.P. through Director (Technical Education) are directed to ensure that they frame a policy whereby counselling is done in a transparent manner. The colleges should be told in clear terms that in case they admit candidates who are not eligible under the management quota they shall be disaffiliated. This is the only penalty which should be levied in future in case the colleges admit students who are ineligible for admission. The colleges should be told in clear terms that in case they admit candidates who are not eligible under the management quota they shall be disaffiliated. This is the only penalty which should be levied in future in case the colleges admit students who are ineligible for admission. The State is directed to ensure that the instructions in this behalf are issued within four weeks. The State while framing the regulation shall ensure that the list of candidates selected by the institutions under the management quota is sent to the H.P.Takniki Shiksha Board alongwith photo copy of their educational qualifications. 11. As far as the present case is concerned, respondent No.2 is found guilty of indulging in a highly despicable practice and is also guilty of trying to mislead the Court. Respondent No.2 is burdened with costs of Rs.50,000/-, which shall be paid to the Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee, Bar Council of H.P. The costs be paid within four weeks from today. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.