Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1913 (BOM)

Vile Parle Mahila Sangh v. SNDT Womens University

2013-09-19

K.R.SHRIRAM, S.J.VAZIFDAR

body2013
JUDGMENT S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. Petitioner No.2 - Lions Juhu Nandlal Jalan Mahila Vidyalaya is a college run by the first petitioner, a registered society and a trust. Respondent No. 1 - SNDT Womens University is a University. Respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra. 3. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to declare the results of 49 students who appeared in May 2012 for the fourth year examination conducted by the first respondent as per an old B.A. B.Ed. syllabus. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside a communication dated 3rd November, 2012, addressed by the first respondent to the petitioners alleging certain irregularities by the petitioners. 4. The petitioners have been conducting a number of courses for girls at the graduate and post-graduate level since the year 1969. The second petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the college") has been affiliated to the first respondent-University and has been conducting courses as per the rules and regulations prescribed and as per the syllabus approved by the University. In May 2003, respondent No.2 - State of Maharashtra accorded its no objection to the petitioner starting a B.A. B.Ed. integrated course. The college, accordingly, started conducting a B.A. B.Ed. integrated course for the academic year 2003-2004. For this course, the college was to conduct the examination in the first three years and the fourth and final year examination was to be conducted by the University. On 3rd October, 2006, National Council For Teacher Education (NCTE) granted recognition to the college for the session 2006-2007 for the B.A. BEd. course and approved an additional new intake capacity of fifty students. The same was granted on various terms and conditions stipulated therein. Respondent No. 1, by a letter dated 7th October, 2008, addressed to the college, stated as follows: "As per your letter No. Ref/M.M./B.Ed./2006 - 2008 dated 23.09.2008, if the student is the same for B.A. and B.A. with B.Ed. (Integrated) for these two courses then the said courses are different. Hence she will have to fill up two separate registration forms. The student will become B.A. 3rd year and her B.A. with B.Ed. (Integrated) course will be completed in the fourth year. Mark Sheet of B.A. with BEd. (Integrated) will be given to her only once (after completion of the course). Hence she will have to fill up two separate registration forms. The student will become B.A. 3rd year and her B.A. with B.Ed. (Integrated) course will be completed in the fourth year. Mark Sheet of B.A. with BEd. (Integrated) will be given to her only once (after completion of the course). For the First three years only College Ledger will be sent." 5. For the academic year 2007-2008, the pattern of the B.A. B.Ed. integrated course changed. Under the new course, the college was to conduct one examination in the first three years and the final examination was to be conducted by the University. The dropouts and repeaters of the old course were allowed to appear for the University examination over the next few years. By a letter dated 30th September, 2009, the first respondent informed the petitioners that the Board of Examination in its meeting held on 19th May, 2009, passed a resolution that with the change in the pattern of examination, the repeater students of the earlier pattern would have three years' time to complete their course under the old course and that after the three year period, if they fail to clear their papers they would appear for the examination as per the current system under the semester pattern within the stipulated 15 years of validity period from the date of their registration. 6. Thus, the old syllabus was to continue till 2007-2008. This petition concerns 49 students who were enrolled before the academic year 2008-2009. The petitioners, therefore, contend that these 49 students are bound by the old syllabus. The said 49 students, who were repeaters, were admitted to the B.A. B.Ed. course in the year 2004-2005 and were granted admission to the fourth year. The college, under cover of a letter dated 29th August, 2011, submitted 18 enrollment forms in respect of these students of B.A. B.Ed. fourth year integrated old course for the year 2011-2012. Under cover of the said letter, the college also enclosed a cheque drawn in favour of the first respondent. Under cover of another letter dated 30th September, 2011, the college forwarded the enrollment form of one more student and enclosed a cheque drawn in favour of respondent No. 1. By a letter dated 18th April, 2012, addressed to the Controller of Examinations, the petitioners stated that the cheques had not been encashed and, therefore, forwarded a fresh cheque. Under cover of another letter dated 30th September, 2011, the college forwarded the enrollment form of one more student and enclosed a cheque drawn in favour of respondent No. 1. By a letter dated 18th April, 2012, addressed to the Controller of Examinations, the petitioners stated that the cheques had not been encashed and, therefore, forwarded a fresh cheque. These fees were accepted but later, after a period of about six months, returned by the first respondent. 7. By a letter dated 18th February, 2012, the first respondent requested the petitioners to furnish a list of students enrolled for the B.A. B.Ed. integrated course during the academic year 2011-2012 and the number of students who had enrolled directly for the fourth year of the B.Ed. course with their respective enrollment numbers. 8. The petitioners, by a letter dated 27th February, 2012, stated that they had not enrolled any students directly in the B.Ed. fourth year and that students who had been studying from 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 in the first, second and third year of the B.Ed. course had been enrolled. Mr. Desai clarified that what was meant was that these students had not been admitted directly in the fourth year after their HSC. These students had done their B.A., albeit from other colleges. The petitioners further stated that during the period 2004-2008, the first respondent did not enroll the students in the first year, but used to directly enroll them in the fourth year and that, therefore, the enrollment forms of the said 49 students had been sent recently in respect of the old course. 9. As we mentioned earlier, under cover of a letter dated 18th April, 2012, addressed to the Controller of Examinations, the petitioners stated that the cheques forwarded under cover of the letters dated 29th August, 2011 and 30th September, 2011, were not encashed and, therefore, forwarded a fresh cheque. The examinations for the fourth year were held between 3rd May, 2012 and 8th May, 2012. The said 49 students were allowed to appear for the University examination. The examination papers were forwarded by the petitioners to respondent No. 1 as stated in a letter dated 9th May, 2012, addressed by the petitioners to the Controller of Examinations. The results of the 49 students have not been declared to date. 10. The said 49 students were allowed to appear for the University examination. The examination papers were forwarded by the petitioners to respondent No. 1 as stated in a letter dated 9th May, 2012, addressed by the petitioners to the Controller of Examinations. The results of the 49 students have not been declared to date. 10. The Controller of Examinations forwarded a note to the Pro Vice Chancellor of the first respondent stating that the said students were admitted to the B.A. B.Ed. course by the petitioners in the year 2008-2009. The said students, however, had completed their graduation between the years 1993-2010 and were not admitted to the first year of the said course but were admitted directly to the fourth year B.Ed. course. 11. By a letter dated 3rd September, 2012, the college requested the University to declare the results of the said students. The University, by a letter dated 12th September, 2012, stated that an Enquiry Committee was constituted in respect of certain alleged irregularities on the petitioner's part. By a further letter dated 29th October, 2012, the first respondent stated that as the Enquiry Committee was not unanimous, a fresh Enquiry Committee was constituted. The Enquiry Committee was constituted under section 14(14)(A) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Ultimately, the impugned communication dated 2nd November, 2012, was addressed by the Registrar of the first respondent to the petitioners stating, inter-alia, that the report of the Enquiry Committee dated 31st October, 2011, had been approved and accepted by the Vice Chancellor on 1st November, 2012. It stated that the petitioners had allegedly admitted more then the permissible number of students. We are not concerned with the same as admittedly the petitioners have now discontinued the course. The alleged irregularity relevant for the purpose of this petition is that the said students had been provided lateral entry to the fourth year of the said course since the academic year 2007-2008. The same was in violation of the first respondent's Rules and the NCTE Rules and without the authority of law. The first respondent had no connection with the admission of the said 49 students and the costs and consequences of having granted them such admission would have to be borne by the college. The fact, however, remains that the petitioners had informed the first respondent regarding the admission of the said students to the fourth year. The first respondent had no connection with the admission of the said 49 students and the costs and consequences of having granted them such admission would have to be borne by the college. The fact, however, remains that the petitioners had informed the first respondent regarding the admission of the said students to the fourth year. In fact, the petitioners had done the same thing during the previous years. The same was allowed by the first respondent during the previous years. Accordingly, even during the year 2007-2008, the petitioners admitted students who had completed their B.A. from other colleges. 12. Assuming that these students had done a B.A. from the earlier institutions and were granted admission to the fourth year of the integrated course Mr. Desai's argument is this. He submitted that even during the previous years, the University had permitted the petitioners to admit students in similar circumstances directly to the fourth year. Such students had appeared for the examinations and their results had been declared. 13. The respondents also contended that there is a difference between the B.A. or the B.A./B.Ed. integrated course on the one hand and the B.Ed. stand alone course on the other. In the B.Ed. stand alone course, all the B.Ed. subjects are telescoped into one year whereas in the B.A. or B.A./B.Ed. integrated course, the B.Ed. subjects are spread over four years. Under the old course in the third and fourth years of the integrated course, the B.Ed. examination is taken by the University. Thus, a student who has done the B.A. course and is then admitted directly to the fourth year of the B.A./B.Ed. integrated course would not have the benefit of the B.Ed. subjects that the integrated course offered during the first three years. 14. This difficulty, however, was overcome and was permitted to be overcome in the manner as stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the additional affidavit in reply of respondent No.1 dated 6th April, 2013. In the integrated course, there are five papers in the fourth year and the other three papers are spread out during the earlier years. Thus, the students who had done their B.A. and who were enrolled directly to the fourth year would be instructed only in five B.Ed. papers. The remaining three B.Ed. In the integrated course, there are five papers in the fourth year and the other three papers are spread out during the earlier years. Thus, the students who had done their B.A. and who were enrolled directly to the fourth year would be instructed only in five B.Ed. papers. The remaining three B.Ed. papers were, however, compensated by the petitioner holding additional classes in respect thereof, including on Sundays when lecturers used to come and teach. Such lecturers included the Director of the Board of College and University Development - BCUD is a statutory body under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. This apparently was permitted during the previous years. 15. As we noted earlier, 2007-2008 is the last batch of the said 49 students. The course has now been discontinued. For all practical purposes, therefore, the petitioners had received education/instruction in all the B.Ed. papers. The University had permitted the same in the previous years. It would be unfair now to deprive the said 49 students the benefits of their efforts. 16. In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (a)(i). There shall be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.