Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 598 (CAL)

Vidyasagar University v. Sudip Das

2014-07-07

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2014
Judgment : On a complaint made by two eligible candidates, an enquiry was caused to have been held by the Vice-Chancellor of Vidyasagar University for ascertaining the correctness of the complaint regarding illegal admission given to the writ petitioners in the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2012-13 by the college authority of Bengal College of Teacher Education, an institution recognised by NCTE and affiliated to Vidyasagar University. After such an enquiry was held, it was revealed that though the writ petitioners were not recommended by the University authority for admission in the B.Ed. Course in the said college, still then, the college authority admitted them in the said course in total disregard of the admission rules. Accordingly, the registration of those two students was cancelled by the University. As a result, their admission in the said course was also cancelled and their study in the said course was discontinued. Those two students, thus, felt aggrieved. They moved a writ petition being W.P. No. 11197(W) of 2013. The writ petition was entertained by the Learned Single Judge of this Court and direction was given for filing affidavits by the parties in the writ proceeding. An interim order was also passed by the Learned Trial Judge on 17th April, 2013 directing the University authorities, namely, the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, to allow the petitioners to sit in the B.Ed. examination, 2013 on the basis of the certificate of registration issued by the respondent University and also for allowing them to take part in the practical examination which was scheduled to be held from 20th March, 2013 to 19th April, 2013 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, with a rider that participation of the petitioners in the said examination and/or in the practical examination shall be subject to the result of the final decision of the writ petition. The University authorities were not satisfied with the said interim order and as such they filed an application for vacating the interim order. However, since the said application for vacating the interim order could not be heard before such examination was held, the University authority allowed the petitioners to participate in both, written examination as well as practical examination, on the scheduled date. However, since the said application for vacating the interim order could not be heard before such examination was held, the University authority allowed the petitioners to participate in both, written examination as well as practical examination, on the scheduled date. Ultimately, the application for vacating the interim order which was filed by the University authority being CAN 4653 of 2013 came up for consideration before another Learned Single Judge of this Court on 19th March, 2014. After considering the materials on record and also after taking note of the submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Learned Trial Judge held that the college authorities violated the admission norms of the University and allowed those two students to take their admission in B.Ed. Course by refusing admission to the recommended candidates. Despite such a finding was recorded by the Learned Trial Judge, the Learned Trial Judge ultimately passed an order directing the University to publish the result of those two students as they have not only completed the course but also they were allowed to participate in the examination upon payment of requisite fees of their registration. Such direction was passed as the Learned Trial Judge was of the view that the college authority was responsible in admitting those two students in the said course in violation of the University admission norms and the University authority was responsible for regularising their admission by registering them as the students of the said University without verifying their list of sponsored candidates before granting them registration certificate. The Learned Trial Judge also recorded in the order that cancellation of the registration of those two candidates and/or their admission in the said course, by the University authority cannot be held to be justified as such order of cancellation of their admission and/or their registration was passed by the University authority without giving the writ petitioners any opportunity of hearing. By subsequent order passed on 18th March, 2014; the University authority was directed to publish the result of the writ petitioners by 19th March, 2014. These two orders are under challenge in these two mandamus appeals. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Considered the materials on record. Let us now consider the merit of these two appeals in the facts of the instant case. These two orders are under challenge in these two mandamus appeals. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Considered the materials on record. Let us now consider the merit of these two appeals in the facts of the instant case. We have already mentioned above that while entertaining the writ petitions, the writ petitioners were permitted to appear in the B.Ed Examination as well as in the practical examination without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties with a further rider that their participations in the examination and/or their taking part in the practical examination will be subject to the result of the final decision of the writ petitions. Though the University authority filed an application for vacating the said interim order passed by the Learned Trial Judge on 17th April, 2013, but the said application practically became redundant after the writ petitioners were allowed to participate in the said examination. However, the restriction which was imposed on them by the said interim order regarding the fate of their appearance in the said examination, remained operative. The writ petitioners participated in the said examination by accepting the said interim order. As such, the writ petitioners cannot seek any direction upon the University authorities for publication of their results pending decision of the writ petition. The writ petition is yet to be decided on merit. As such, if the result of those two writ petitioners is published, as directed by the Learned Trial Judge, then certainly such direction will operate contrary to the spirit of the interim order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 17th April, 2013 whereby it was made candidly clear that their participation in the said examination will ultimately be subject to the result of the final decision of the writ petition. It, clearly manifests from the said interim order that while deciding the writ petition, if it is ultimately found that their admission was illegal in the said course, then the result of the writ petitioners need not be declared at all. On the contrary, if the writ petitioners ultimately succeed in the writ petition, then their result will be declared. Thus, publication of their result depends upon the fate of the writ petition. On the contrary, if the writ petitioners ultimately succeed in the writ petition, then their result will be declared. Thus, publication of their result depends upon the fate of the writ petition. As such we feel that the Learned Trial Judge ought not to have issued the said direction for publication of the result of those two writ petitioners before deciding the writ petition on merit. Thus without entering into the question regarding legality of the impugned orders in further detail, we hold that the impugned orders cannot be retained on record for the reason as mentioned above. We also refrain ourselves from recording our findings on the issue regarding the legality of their admission in the said B. Ed. Course as the legality of their admission in the said B. Ed. Course itself is the subject matter of decision in the writ petition. As such, we request the Learned Trial Judge to decide the writ petition on merit as early as possible with this rider that the fate of the petitioners' participation in the said examination will ultimately be governed by the result of the writ petition. The Learned Trial Judge is, thus, requested to dispose of the writ petitions on their own merit after taking note of the affidavits filed by the respective parties without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove or by the observations made by the Learned Trial Judge in the impugned order. Both the appeals are thus disposed of. The impugned orders passed by the Learned Trial Judge are thus set aside.