Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 800 (MP)

Nisha Shukla (Mishra) v. State of M. P.

2013-07-15

A.K.Sharma, Rajendra Menon

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition and feel aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondent No. 3 in not declaring the result of the Course in question namely B.Ed for the academic session 2007-2008. It is a case of the petitioners that after fulfilling all the criteria required they sought admission in B.Ed Course in respondent No. 4 Institute situated in Rewa. They were granted admission and their examination for the Course being B.Ed. for the academic session 2007-08 is over, but when after conduct of the examination results were not declared for more than three years, this writ petition was filed seeking a direction to respondent University for declaring their result. It is stated that the University having accepted the examination form and having taken the examination are now precluded from refusing to declare the results. It is stated that petitioners have taken admission after being satisfied of the fact that respondent No. 4 institute fulfills all the condition required for grant of admission and as the admission was taken after proper enquiry, it is stated that now the benefit cannot be denied to the petitioners. 2. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed the reply and it is pointed out by the respondents that institute in question, namely, Geeta Jyoti B.Ed. College, Rewa granted admission to the students without proper recognition and affiliation from the National Council for Teachers Education or the University. Referring to section 17A of the NCTE Act, 1993 it is pointed out that no admission can be granted without recognition and as admission was granted without proper recognition, the University has refused to declare the result and it is pointed out that petitioners are not entitled to any relief as they have been admitted to a institute which was not recognized by the Statutory authority. 3. Respondents have brought on record various orders and it is pointed out that due to pendency of Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court Annexure R4/3 provisional admission was granted to the students to appear in the examination. 3. Respondents have brought on record various orders and it is pointed out that due to pendency of Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court Annexure R4/3 provisional admission was granted to the students to appear in the examination. Now the SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court and it has been held by Supreme Court that no institute is authorized to grant admission to students without proper affiliation or recognition and as in the present for the academic session 2007-08 the institute in question was not having any recognition, it is stated that the result of the petitioners-students cannot be declared. 4. Shri V. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent University points out that in the admission card issued to the candidates itself it is clearly stipulated that permission to appear in the examination is subject to decision of Supreme Court in the pending SLP. The order passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.21288/2009 Annexure R2/1 has been brought on record by the National Council for Teachers Education and in this order Geeta Jyoti B.Ed College is also petitioner No. 2 before the Supreme Court. From the reply filed by respondent No. 2, the Nation Council for Teachers Education, it is clear that the institute in question was not having proper recognition for the academic session and therefore, it is stated by them that by virtue of section 17A of the NCTE Act, 1993 no relief can be granted to the institute or students now. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of rival contentions, it is clear that students were admitted in the institute without recognition and once it is clear that institute was not authorized to admit the students and permission was granted to the petitioners to appear in the examination on the basis of certain interim orders passed by the Supreme Court and now when the SLP having been dismissed, no interference is called for. 6. Even though during the course of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner invited out attention to certain principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeals No. 4305-4306/2011 - Abhudya Sanstha v. Union of India and Ors. 6. Even though during the course of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner invited out attention to certain principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeals No. 4305-4306/2011 - Abhudya Sanstha v. Union of India and Ors. to say that if the student has been wrongly admitted, the student is entitled to compensation of Rs.1 Lac, we are of the considered view that the said benefit cannot be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition, as no such prayer is made or claim was made for compensation in this petition. Grant of compensation is a consequential action or relief and without there being any proper pleadings or material available on record, the respondent/ institute cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. The petitioner has to make a specific pleadings and prayer in this regard and it only after proper notice to the institute and after hearing them that such a relief can be granted. This prayer was made after the hearing was concluded and the main order dictated in open Court. 7. That being so, liberty is granted to the petitioner to initiate the proceedings in accordance with law, in case, the petitioner wants to claim any damages or compensation for the loss caused due to default or act of commission or omission on the part of the respondent/institute. 8. Accordingly for the present finding no case for issuing any mandamus for declaration of results in this writ petition for the reasons indicated herein above, we see no reason to interfere. 9. Petition is therefore dismissed.