Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 493 (UTT)

Tarun Dhirwan v. H. N. B. Garhwal University

2013-07-29

V.K.BIST

body2013
Judgment V.K. Bist, J. Notice to respondent no.4 was sent on 25.07.2012 by registered post, acknowledgment due. Office has reported that neither undelivered envelope received back nor anyone has filed power on behalf of respondent no.4. Since registered letter was sent one year ago and undelivered envelope has not received back, service upon respondent no.4 is found sufficient. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 5th July, 2012 passed by Assistant Registrar, Examination, H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal whereby examination form of the petitioners for LL.B. 1st semester, session 2011-12 has been rejected on the ground that petitioners did not possess requisite qualification as they have not got minimum 45% marks in graduation. Further prayer has been made seeking direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to sit in the examination for the LL.B. 1st semester conducted by the respondents for the session 2011-12. 4. On 20th July, 2012, an interim order was passed by this Court, whereby the petitioners were provisionally permitted to appear in the examination of LL.B. 1st semester for the session 2011-12 to be conducted by the respondent-University. It was further provided in the order that result of the petitioners shall not be declared by the University. Thereafter, on 06.10.2012, the modification application of the petitioners for declaring the result of 1st semester examination was rejected with the liberty to move fresh application for declaration of their result before the regular Court. However, the University permitted the petitioners to appear in 2nd semester. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application permitting them to appear in the 1st semester examination provisionally at their own risk. This Court granted permission to submit their examination forms for 3rd semester at their own risk, however, examination has not been conducted till date. 5. Now the petitioners’ counsel requested for granting provisional permission to the petitioners to appear in 3rd semester examination, which is strongly opposed by the counsel for the University on the ground that admission of the petitioners in LL.B. course was not legal, as the petitioners did not fulfill the required criteria fixed by the Bar Council of India. Learned counsel for the University submits that Rule-7 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 2008 provides minimum percentage of marks for admission in LL.B. course. Learned counsel for the University submits that Rule-7 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 2008 provides minimum percentage of marks for admission in LL.B. course. According to Rule-7 of Bar Council of India Rules, the general category candidate having less than 45% of total marks and SC/ST category candidates having less than 40% of total marks, shall not be eligible for admission in LL.B. course. Copy of the relevant Rule has also been annexed. On previous occasion, Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for Bar Council of India was directed to appear and put stand of Bar Council of India about this fact. Today Mr. Sharma, supplied copy of Bar Council of India Rules. The Rule, which has been referred by Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the University is the same Rule, which has been provided by Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate. Bar Council of India Rules were framed in the year 2008, therefore any admission made after 2008, in which the students having secured less than 45 marks are not entitled for admission in LL.B. course and admission made by the concerned College is in violation of Rule-7 of Bar Council of India Rules. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. B.S. Adhikari drew my attention to annexure no.6 (brochure supplied by respondent no.4 DAV PG College, Karanpur, Dehradun). In Clause-3 of the brochure supplied by respondent no.4, it is mentioned that in LL.B. 1st semester for all categories, including Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and O.B.C., minimum marks in graduation or post graduation should be 40%. He also referred the information brochure supplied by the College at the time of entrance test and admission, in which for admission test, at least 45% for general and OBC and 40% for SC and ST categories in UG/PG degree is shown as eligibility. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of this brochure and the Information Bulletin, the petitioners were under the impression that they are eligible for admission for LL.B. course, as they have secured 45% marks in their post graduation. Though, it is true that petitioners took admission on the basis of qualification mentioned in brochure, but no admission in contravention of the Rules can be permitted to be continued. The petitioners should have been vigilant enough at the time of taking admission. Interim order was granted provisionally and one time, same was granted to the petitioners on their own risk. The petitioners should have been vigilant enough at the time of taking admission. Interim order was granted provisionally and one time, same was granted to the petitioners on their own risk. Now the matter is being heard finally. The Court has to see legality of the admission granted by respondent no.4. Admission was granted to the petitioners by the D.A.V. PG College, Karanpur, Dehradun inspite of the fact that the petitioners were not eligible for getting admission. The University has rightly rejected their examination forms. I do not find any illegality in the order of the University whereby examination forms of the petitioners were rejected. 7. Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioners also referred paragraph-5 of the affidavit filed by the petitioners on 20th March, 2013, whereby the petitioners have drawn out a list of various candidates, those who have secured less than 45% marks in graduation and were granted admission by the respondent-College during the year 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11. He submitted that these students are being permitted to pursue their studies. Even if this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is found correct, neither the petitioners, nor anybody who has secured less than 45% marks, can be permitted to continue. 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. However, this Court finds that D.A.V. PG College, Karanpur, Dehradun misled the students, including the petitioners, and on the basis of wrong information, which was contrary to Rules, all the petitioners took admission. The petitioners were under the impression that they are eligible to take admission in LL.B. course but legally the petitioners are not entitled for admission and they cannot be permitted to continue their LL.B. course. Various students, including the petitioners, took admission on the basis of brochure of the College. Thus, I find that the concerned College has misrepresented and is responsible for the loss, which the petitioners are going to suffer. Various students, including the petitioners, took admission on the basis of brochure of the College. Thus, I find that the concerned College has misrepresented and is responsible for the loss, which the petitioners are going to suffer. I also find that the respondent-College acted in much careless manner in issuing such brochure alongwith the admission forms for the aspirants interested for admission in LL.B. course for the session 2011-12, thereby mentioning minimum percentage of marks 40% for all the categories, whereas in the general information, about entrance test and admission, for the same session 2011-12, 45% minimum marks for general and OBC category and 40% marks for SC and ST categories in UG/PG degree were mentioned. Since the petitioners suffered adversely due to the misleading information given by the College and College played with the career of the petitioners, I impose cost of Rs. 50,000/- on respondent-College for each petitioner. Respondent-College (D.A.V. PG College, Karanpur, Dehradun) is directed to make payment of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. As already observed above that the respondent-College acted in very careless manner and has violated Bar Council of India Rules in granting admission to the students in LL.B. course, I direct the Bar Council of India to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law.