Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 152 (ORI)

Ashish Kumar Agrawal v. Utkal University

2015-03-03

B.R.SARANGI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The petitioner, who is a student of +3 Commerce 1st year Degree Course, has filed this petition seeking for a direction to opposite party no.2 to admit him in the receiving college pursuant to Annexures-2 and 3 dated 14.11.2014 and 1.12.2014 respectively, whereby permission has been granted by both the relieving college and receiving college duly approved by the Utkal University. 2. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner after passing +2 Commerce course in the year 2014 from P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda, was admitted into +3 1st year Commerce Course in Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki during the session 2014-15. He being a permanent resident of Khurda town and is suffering from Bronchitis with Asthama, it was difficult on his part to prosecute his studies at Banki. Consequently, he applied for transfer from Banki (Autonomous College), Banki to P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda as per the resolution of the Government of Odisha in Higher Education Department dated 30.09.2014 in the prescribed form by depositing the requisite fees before the Utkal University. In the application vide Annexure-2 certificate has been granted by the receiving college, namely, P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda, on 13.11.2014 indicating that a seat is available in +3 1st year Commerce class with subjects taken by the candidate in the former college. On 14.11.2014, the relieving college, namely, Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki has issued no objection to issue CLC to enable the petitioner to get admission in the receiving college, where a seat is lying vacant. The petitioner submitted the application before the Utkal University for granting approval of transfer with requisite fees. Considering the same the University granted necessary permission for transfer from Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki vide Annexure-3 to enable the petitioner to get himself admitted in +3 1st year Commerce Course in P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda with the same subject as taken in the former college vide order dated 1.12.2014. The petitioner produced the same before opposite party no.2, but for some reason or other, opposite party no.2 did not admit the petitioner. Hence this application. 3. The petitioner produced the same before opposite party no.2, but for some reason or other, opposite party no.2 did not admit the petitioner. Hence this application. 3. Mr.S.K.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that having granted necessary permission on the basis of which everything has been acted upon in accordance with law by the respective colleges and also by the University, the action of opposite party no.2 in not admitting the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and hit by the principles of estoppels, more particularly, it is urged that the opposite party no.2 having made entries in Annexure-2 that a seat is available in +3 1st year Commerce class with subjects taken by the candidate in the former college, basing upon which the relieving college had granted necessary permission to grant necessary CLC to take admission in the receiving college, which the University has permitted, at this point of time, the opposite party no.2 should not remain silent over the matter instead of acting on the same. He further submits that because of change of Principal in the college of opposite party no.2, the petitioner is deprived of getting admission into the said college. In support of his submission, Mr.Das has relied upon the judgments of this Court as well as the apex Court in B.L. Sreedhar and others. V. K.M. Munireddy (Dead) and others, AIR 2003 SC 578 , Miss Reeta Lenka v. Berhampur University and another, 1992 (II) OLR-341, David C. Jhan v. Principal, Ispat College, Rourkela and others, 1984 (I) OLR-564, Ambika Prasad Mohanty v. Orissa Engineering College and another, 1989 (I) OLR-440, Dr. (Smt.) Pranaya Ballari Mohanty v. Utkal University and others, 2014 (I) OLR-226, Rajanikanta Priyadarshy v. Utkal University, W.P.(C) 22918 of 2013 disposed of on 23.12.2014. 4. Mr. T.N.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Utkal University referring to the counter affidavit specifically states that transfer of a particular student from one college to another is purely done in consonance with Statute 235 of the Orissa University First Statute, 1990 and the same is given effect to only on the basis of the no objection from both the colleges, i.e., the college, which is to receive the student and the college which is to allow the student to leave the college. It is stated that the Principal of Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki has already given consent for the said purpose and also the Principal of P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda has given permission to go ahead with the said purpose as evident from the record. After receiving the same, the University has also granted permission for transfer of the petitioner from one college to another. Since permission has been granted in accordance with Statute 235 of the Orissa University First Statute, 1990, the same should be acted upon by the respective colleges. 5. Opposite party no.2 has also filed counter affidavit stating that admittedly the petitioner wants to get admission in P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda on transfer from Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki, for the current academic session 2014-15 and as per circular of the Government, the admission process must be completed before 31st of December, 2014 and it is stated that no iota of evidence has been produced to substantiate that the petitioner has approached the Principal with required documents such as (a) Permission letter from competent authorities; (b) Original CLC from Banki Autonomous College, Banki; (c) Cancelled C.L.C. (d) Mark-sheet. (e) Details of Attendance. (f) Details of First Semester (g) Self attested passport sized pictures. It is further urged that grant of permission by the authorities for transfer of students from one college to another college, does not ipso facto guarantee the right to take admission unless he fulfills the requirements as mentioned above. The admission having been over on 31.12.2014, it will cause great dislocation if any admission would be given to the petitioner at this point of time. 6. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that admittedly the petitioner is prosecuting his +3 1st year Commerce Course in Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki. Due to his health problem, he applied in the prescribed form vide Annexure-2 in which the receiving college, namely, P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda has specifically stated that one seat is available with the subjects taken by the candidate in the former college on 13.11.2014. Due to his health problem, he applied in the prescribed form vide Annexure-2 in which the receiving college, namely, P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda has specifically stated that one seat is available with the subjects taken by the candidate in the former college on 13.11.2014. Since a seat is available at the receiving college, the relieving college, namely, Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki on 14.11.2014 made endorsement that the petitioner is a student of +3 1st year Commerce Course of the college and his subjects are Accounting (Honours) and his conduct and character is good and therefore, it has no objection to issue CLC. The said application was duly forwarded to the Utkal University with requisite fees and on consideration of the same, the Utkal University passed order in Annexure-3 granting permission to obtain transfer certificate from Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki and allow the petitioner to get himself admitted in +3 1st year Commerce class in P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda in the same subjects as taken in the former college on 1.12.2014. Such permission was accorded in view of the provisions contained in Statute 235 of the Orissa University First Statute, 1990. Once such permission has been accorded by the Utkal University, there is no reason for the receiving College not to allow admission in the institution because on the basis of the endorsement given that a seat is available, the institution has held out a promise to allow the student to take admission in the college with the same subject which was taken in the former college, which has been so permitted by the University vide Annexure-3. Having given the certificate that a seat with the subject taken by the petitioner in the former College is available on the basis of which the petitioner proceeded further and consequently the relieving college also granted necessary endorsement to allow the petitioner to take CLC to get admission in the receiving college with permission of the University in Annexure-3, subsequently, opposite party no.2 cannot turn around and say that no right is accrued in favour of the petitioner to get himself admitted into the institution, as the same is hit by the principles of estoppels because the petitioner has acted upon basing on the promise made by the receiving college indicating that a seat in the same subject is available and the same having been acted upon, at a subsequent stage, he cannot be denied such admission, which is contrary to the provisions of law. Such contention is being fortified by the judgments referred to above by Mr. S.K.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, the opposite party no.2 cannot deny admission to the petitioner in his own institution in respect of the seat available with the same subject taken by the candidate in the former college. 7. So far as the contention that the last date for admission being 31st of December, 2014, no admission can be granted to the petitioner after expiry of the last date is concerned, the same cannot hold good in view of the fact that it is not an admission simpliciter, rather it is an admission on transfer from one college to another for which necessary permission has been accorded by the University as per Statute 235 of the Orissa University First Statute, 1990 and on the basis of the permission accorded in favour of the petitioner, he cannot be denied admission on transfer into the receiving college, which has reached finality by grant necessary permission by the University. 8. For the foregoing reasons and keeping in view the law laid down by this Court as well as apex Court, this Court directs the opposite party no.2 to admit the petitioner in the college within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and allow the petitioner to prosecute his studies in respect of the subjects he has taken in the relieving college, i.e., Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki. 9. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. No cost.