Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 572 (ORI)

Sasmita Jamuda v. Utkal University

2015-10-05

D.P.CHOUDHURY, INDRAJIT MAHANTY

body2015
JUDGMENT : DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. Challenge has been made to the arbitrary action by the opp. Parties in not allowing admission to the petitioner in the Post-Graduate Course by the opp. Party in the opp. Party no.1 University. FACTS & SUBMISSIONS: 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner supporting the petition submitted that the petitioner has passed +3 Commerce Degree Examinations in the year 2014 from B.J.B. Autonomous College, Bhubaneswar being placed in First Division. Thereafter she underwent one Post-Graduate Diploma Course under opp. Party no.5. Since the opp. Parties 1 to 4 invited applications vide Annexure-1 to various Post-Graduate Courses in the year 2015-16, the petitioner applied to prosecute her study in Post-Graduate Degree Course in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations (PMIR) in the opp. Party no.1-Unversity. It is further contended that the petitioner got intimation to get admission on 29.6.2015. When she approached opp. Party no.4 for admission, the latter refused to admit her in the P.G. Course in the subject PMIR. She submitted a representation before the Heads of the Department of PMIR, but it was rejected on the ground that she has completed Post-Graduate in Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Dhenkanal and as per information bulletin in Clause-III (B)(xv) she is not entitled to get admission in the Post-Graduate Degree course. Thereafter the petitioner ventilated her grievance before the higher authority, but all were in vain. 3. It is further alleged inter alia by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the Graduation in Commerce, the petitioner only attended one year Diploma Course in Journalism and not any other P.G. Degree course, but the opp. Parties illegally rejected her candidature and did not allow to admit her in the P.G. Degree Course. She being a Scheduled Tribe girl was refused to get admission although other persons in the similar circumstances got admission, her fundamental right as per the Constitution has been violated. So, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order or remark date d 29.6.2015 made by the opp. Party no.4 in rejecting the representation or refusing to give admission to the petitioner should be quashed and necessary direction be given to the opp. Parties 1 to 4 to admit the petitioner in the P.G. Course in the Department of PMIR. 4. Learned counsel for the opp. Party no.4 in rejecting the representation or refusing to give admission to the petitioner should be quashed and necessary direction be given to the opp. Parties 1 to 4 to admit the petitioner in the P.G. Course in the Department of PMIR. 4. Learned counsel for the opp. Party supporting the counter submitted that the petitioner could not produce the C.L.C. at the time of ad mission and more over at the time of admission she has already completed P.G. Course. He further submitted that Clause-III(B) (xv) of the information bulletin vide Annexure-B/1 shows that no admission shall be given to a candidate for P.G. course for second time and since the petitioner had passed the P.G. Diploma in Journalism in Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), Dhenkanal, she is disqualified to get admission in the P.G. Course in PMIR at opp. Party no.1-University. It is contended by the learned counsel for the opp. Party that the action of the opp. Party no.4 is legal and proper and in no way her right has been abridged by the opp. parties. So he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. POINT FOR DISCUSSION: 5. After going through the contentions of both parties, the only point emerges to find out whether the petitioner is disqualified by the information bulletin issued by the opp. Parties in getting her admission in P.G. course in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations (PMIR). DISCUSSIONS 6. Annexure-1 shows that in the year 2015-16 the information bulletin has been issued by opp. Party no.1-University seeking applications for admission into different P.G. Disciplines. It further shows that the subject “Personnel Management and Industrial Relations” is a Post-Graduate Degree Course (in short PMIR) and for such course applications were invited from the candidates of Scheduled Tribe category who have secured 50% in the Bachelor Degree. This programme is a Four Semester Programme. It reveals from the petition accompanied with affidavit that the petitioner has passed B.Com. and has undergone one year Post-Graduate Diploma in Journalism (Odiya) and applied for prosecuting the P.G. course in PMIR. She has also stated in her affidavit that she has qualified to get admission. In support of her contention she produced Annexure-2, which shows that she being selected provisionally to get her admission vide Roll No.1018405 was directed to appear before the Heads of Department at 11.00 A.M. on 29.6.2015 with her original documents. She has also stated in her affidavit that she has qualified to get admission. In support of her contention she produced Annexure-2, which shows that she being selected provisionally to get her admission vide Roll No.1018405 was directed to appear before the Heads of Department at 11.00 A.M. on 29.6.2015 with her original documents. It appears from Annexure-3 that she appeared before the Heads of Department, but due to stipulation in Clause-III(B)(xv) that the candidate can be denied admission if he or she has already P.G. course by the time of admission. It is the contention of the opp. Parties that since she has no College Leaving Certificate and has already got P.G. Course she was not entitled to get admission in the P.G. course in PMIR. Not a single document or any endorsement of the Heads of Department produced by the opp. Party could show that she has failed to produce the College Leaving Certificate. So the plea of the opp. Party that the petitioner failed to produce the College Leaving Certificate yet to be proved. 7. Annexure-5 shows that the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Dhenkanal offers different courses including P.G. Diploma course in Journalism with duration from August, 2014 to May, 2015. Thus, the said course is one year Diploma course, but this course is only after Graduation Degree obtained by the candidate. Annexure-6 shows that the petitioner has completed such P.G. Diploma course in Odiya Journalism in IIMC, Dhenkanal having successfully secured 61% of marks. This certificate has been given by the Professor and Head of IIMC, Dhenkanal. Annexure-6 also shows that that this course is a 10 months course not being even one year and it is not a Master Programme. So, we are of the considered view that this P.G. Diploma course in Odiya Journalism underwent by the petitioner is neither a P.G. Degree nor a two year Master Programme and petitioner has only after Graduation undergone such Diploma Programme. 8. On further scrutiny of Annexure-1 it appears that Clause-III(B)(xv) of the information bulletin purportedly states that no admission should be given to a candidate to P.G. Course for the second time. If any candidate completing the P.G. course, takes admission into any P.G. course providing wrong/false information his/her admission will be cancelled when detected. Under this ground, the Head of department has disqualified the petitioner. If any candidate completing the P.G. course, takes admission into any P.G. course providing wrong/false information his/her admission will be cancelled when detected. Under this ground, the Head of department has disqualified the petitioner. It is necessary to scrutinize the said Clause (xv). There is nothing found from the counter under what basis such clause has been incorporated in the information bulletin vide Annexure-1. Quest for knowledge more and more is always encouraged, but under no circumstances be discouraged. After giving much though over the said clause, we are of the view that the admission for the second time to a P.G. course is banned because a person having passed P.G. in one discipline, should not be allowed to prosecute study again in such discipline. For example, a person having passed P.G. in Chemistry cannot be permitted to take admission against in that subject. But at no stretch of imagination it can be said that a candidate having passed M.A. in English cannot prosecute study P.G. in Odiya. The academic institution should always encourage the students to acquire more and more educational qualifications. So clause (xv) should not be interpreted to discourage such additional qualifications to be obtained by the candidates. Moreover, if we go for plain reading of clause (xv) it is only found that the previous Degree must be a P.G. Degree, but not a Diploma. There is difference between Degree and Diploma. In view of the Annexure-6 that the petitioner only passed a one year Diploma which is not a P.G. degree course as per the certificate of the Heads of the Department of the IIMC, Dhenkanal, under such circumstances it can not be assumed that she has completed P.G. Degree in Journalism so as to disqualify herself in taking admission in P.G. course in PMIR. We are of the considered view that the petitioner having no P.G. Degree cannot be denied admission into P.G. in PMIR. The endorsement by the Heads of the Department in Annexure-3 is unfortunately juxtapose to the legal consequence of such clause (xv) issued in the information bulletin. CONCLUSION 9. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that clause (xv) should be understood always to encourage to acquire knowledge and in no case it should be seen with jaundice eye. The purpose of intention of such clause to promote education without going into technicality. CONCLUSION 9. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that clause (xv) should be understood always to encourage to acquire knowledge and in no case it should be seen with jaundice eye. The purpose of intention of such clause to promote education without going into technicality. In fact when the petitioner has no P.G. Degree by the time of admission, we are of the considered view that she should be given admission to P.G. course in PMIR. On the other hand, the remark or order of opp. Party no.4 and other contentions as to invalidity of candidature of petitioner is liable to be interfered with. Hence, we are satisfied with the fact that the petitioner’s fundamental right has been violated by not allowing her to get admission although she was provisionally selected. We, therefore, hereby quash the order or the endorsement of the Heads of Department towards refusal to give admission to the petitioner and at the same time we direct the opp. Parties 1 to 4 to give admission to the petitioner to the P.G. in PMIR within a period of two weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. I Agree.