Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 996 (ALL)

SHIVANI MOHAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-04-28

YASHWANT VARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the respondent University on 21.1.2015, turning down the request of the petitioner to confirm her admission in Dayanand Girls PG College Kanpur in the B.Ed session 2014-15. 2. This Court has heard Sri Gautam Baghel in support of the writ petition, learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents, Sri Neeraj Tiwari who has appeared for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 University and Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh who has appeared for the Institution. 3. The petition itself represents a second round of litigation inter parties and accordingly on 13.4.2015, the parties were asked to complete their instructions/file responses to this writ petition so that the matter may be finally disposed of. Pursuant to the above liberty granted, Sri Neeraj Tiwari and Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh have proceeded for final disposal of this writ petition on instructions. Accordingly and with the consent of parties, the petition has been finally heard. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is relevant to note here that the respondent No. 3 University conducted a Joint Entrance Examination for the B.Ed session 2014-15 for all Institutions affiliated with the Universities in the State of U.P. The petitioner also applied and was issued an appropriate admit card, pursuant to which she appeared in the entrance examination. On declaration of the result, the petitioner was one of the successful candidates and her State Rank was declared as 50998. As per the terms and conditions mentioned and set out in the Brochure, the petitioner proceeded to deposit the requisite fee and appeared for counselling. During counselling, her testimonials and other documents were verified and during the said process, she indicated the following choice of Institutions : (i) Dayanand Girls College, Kanpur. (ii) Dayanand Women’s Training College, Kanpur (iii) Mahila Vidyalaya, Kanpur (iv) D.B.S. Collee, Kanpur (v) Saraswati Mahila Vidyalaya, Kanpur 5. The result of the counselling session was thereafter uploaded on the website of the respondent University and as is evident from the documents appearing at page 54 of the writ petition, the petitioner’s admission was confirmed and she was allotted the respondent No. 5 Institution. It is not disputed that consequent to the above allotment, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 5 Institution and also deposited the requisite fee. It is not disputed that consequent to the above allotment, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 5 Institution and also deposited the requisite fee. Page 58 of the writ petition is a document which carries an endorsement said to have been made by an authority of the University requiring the respondent No. 5 to accord admission to her. It becomes relevant to note here that the documents appended at pages 54 and 58 of the paper book are extracts of data appearing on the website of the University and clearly show and establish that the petitioner had been accorded admission and also indicated the particular institution which had been allotted to her. 6. After deposit of fee, the petitioner is also said to have been issued appropriate identity card, library card and other documents by the respondent No. 5 Institution. It was however on or about 15.7.2014 that the respondent No. 5 Institution informed the petitioner that it has not received a ‘confirmation letter’ from the respondent No. 3 University. It is at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 60816 of 2014, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent University to issue a confirmation letter. This Writ Petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 21.11.2015 in the following terms : “1. The petitioner cleared the entrance test for admission to B.Ed. course. She also appeared in the counselling and has also deposited her fees. She has been admitted by the respondent No. 5 institution. It appears that after the counselling was over, certain confirmation letter was required to have been got generated by the petitioner, certifying that she has actually opted for admission, which according to University has not been done in the present case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to various letters sent by the petitioner informing the University in this regard and the respondent No. 5 also sent a communication to the University on 30th October, 2014, clarifying that petitioner has already been admitted and she is pursuing her studies. It is also stated that seats are available, against which, the petitioner can continue. 3. From the perusal of materials brought on record, it does appear that petitioner had been validly admitted after having cleared the entrance test and the counselling. It is also stated that seats are available, against which, the petitioner can continue. 3. From the perusal of materials brought on record, it does appear that petitioner had been validly admitted after having cleared the entrance test and the counselling. The petitioner contends that she had tried to generate the confirmation letter, but on account of some technical error in the official website, such confirmation letter could not be generated. However, the petitioner has been repeatedly informing the respondent University and the respondent No. 5 institution has also issued a letter to the University in this regard. 4. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent University to examine the grievance of the petitioner, and in case, required number of seats have already not been filled, the University will sympathetically consider the claim of the petitioner and she would not be denied admission only on the ground of non-generation of the confirmation letter. 5. In view of the observations and directions made above, the writ petition is disposed of.” 7. Sri Neeraj Tiwai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University does not dispute the fact that this order has since attained finality and has not been challenged by the University. Pursuant to the above order being made by this Court, the matter appears to have been again considered by the respondent Bundelkhand University Jhansi and ultimately by the order dated 21.1.2015, the prayers made by the petitioner have come to be rejected. While rejecting the claim laid by the petitioner, the respondent University has asserted that the failure on the part of the petitioner to obtain a confirmation letter led them to presume that she had not joined the Institution in question and accordingly the seat allotted to her had been included in pool counselling and the seat itself allotted to other students. The second ground taken in the impugned oder is that the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 5914/11 and upon IA No. 115/14 preferred therein, in terms of which no admissions are permitted to be effected post 10.10.2014. It is on the above grounds that the petitioner has been come to be non suited. Pursuant to the order dated 21.1.2015, the University has also refunded the amounts deposited by the petitioner towards fee. 8. It is on the above grounds that the petitioner has been come to be non suited. Pursuant to the order dated 21.1.2015, the University has also refunded the amounts deposited by the petitioner towards fee. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that in the earlier round of litigation, the Court categorically recorded that the petitioner had been validly admitted and that the confirmation letter could not be generated on account of some technical errors on the official website of the University. The Court also noticed the contention of the petitioner that this fact had been duly informed and conveyed to the respondent University and that the respondent No. 5 Institution had also written to the University in this regard. The judgment of this Court rendered inter parties further provided that the petitioner would not be denied admission only on the ground of non generation of confirmation letter. This judgment has attained finality inter parties. 9. From the submissions advanced by the parties and the material existing on record, it is apparent that the admission of the petitioner stood finalized once she was allotted the Institution in question and she proceeded to deposit all requisite fee and complete all formalities. The admission brochure as well as the brochure circulated at the time of counselling further provided that the fee etc would be deposited on line or through the SBI Payment Gateway with the respondent University and thereafter the candidate was to obtain the transaction ID. The brochure then provided that after completion of the above formalities, the candidate would take a print out of the confirmation letter by filling in her roll number, date of birth and transaction ID. The brochure nowhere required the confirmation letter to be filed or presented before the respondent University or the Institution in question. The admission booklet/brochure further nowhere provided that the admission which a candidate may have obtained would be subject to or be accepted only upon such a confirmation letter being generated/filed by the candidate. 10. In fact and as has been noted above, the documents appearing at pages 54 and 58 of the paper book clearly show and establish that post counselling, the petitioner had been allotted the Institution and had also deposited the requisite fee with the respondent University. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, all proceedings/requirements stood completed in all respects. 10. In fact and as has been noted above, the documents appearing at pages 54 and 58 of the paper book clearly show and establish that post counselling, the petitioner had been allotted the Institution and had also deposited the requisite fee with the respondent University. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, all proceedings/requirements stood completed in all respects. The fact that the petitioner had duly deposited the requisite fee is further evident from the fact that the amounts were subsequently refunded by the University only on 4.3.2015. 11. Since the petitioner had already obtained admission to the respondent No. 5 Institution, the question of a direction now being issued to the respondents to accord admission to her does not arise at all. In fact, she already stood admitted in the Institution in question and all that was required was a confirmation by the University in this regard. Further more and as was recorded by this Court on the earlier occasion also, the factum of the petitioner having been validly admitted was not disputed or challenged by the respondents. 12. In the opinion of the Court, the mere fact that the petitioner did not file/present/obtain the confirmation letter would not be sufficient to deny her continuance in the respondent No. 5 Institution. The petitioner was allotted the respondent Institution post counselling. The fee was also duly accepted by the University. The University therefore cannot contend that they had no knowledge of the petitioner having taken admission. Further more, the fact that the petitioner could not generate the confirmation letter due to a technical glitch on the University website cannot be a ground for cancellation of her admission. Moreover, the admission stood completed when the petitioner joined the Institution and deposited the requisite fee. Upon completion of such formalities, the seat allotted to her consequent to counselling could not have been treated as vacant or unfilled. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Institution has submitted that there are still vacant seats in the Institution and that in case the petitioner again deposits the requisite amounts towards fee, as was refunded to her, the Institution would have no objection to permit her to pursue the course in question. 14. Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition shall stand allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.1.2015 and 4.3.2015 passed by the respondent University shall stand quashed. 14. Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition shall stand allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.1.2015 and 4.3.2015 passed by the respondent University shall stand quashed. The petitioner shall redeposit the requisite fee, refunded to her and complete all formalities as may be required by the University and the Institution for the purposes of completion of her course. She will consequently be permitted to continue in the B.Ed course in the respondent Institution as per the admission originally made in her favour. ———————