Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 849 (RAJ)

Vinod Kumar v. University of Rajasthan

2016-06-09

ALOK SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : With a graduation degree in the year 1988 from the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, the petitioner applied in 2014 for admission to the Three Year LLB course conducted by the University of Rajasthan. Ordinance 252 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances deals with eligibility for admission to its three year LLB Course which reads as under:- O.252(1) A candidate who has taken the Bachelor's or the Master's degree in Arts/ Science/ Commerce/ Medicine/ Engineering/ Nursing/ Agriculture or the Degree of Shastri/Acharya or the Degree of Ayurvedacharya/Ayurveda Brahespati of this University or any other University recognised for the purpose by the Syndicate with full course prescribed for the degree and secured a minimum of 45% marks (excluding any concessional marks) in the aggregate marks prescribed for the examination for the aforesaid degree shall be eligible for admission to LLB First year course. Explanation: (i) for the purpose of this Ordinance the marks of only those subjects/papers shall be taken into account which had been considered for awarding division at the Bachelor's/Master's Degree Examination. (ii) Candidates who have passed their qualifying examination with full course in one attempt or in parts or as private candidate or by correspondence, will also be eligible for admission to LLB First Year Course class provided they secure minimum percentage of marks as prescribed above. (2) Admission shall be made on the basis of merit and in accordance with the rules made therefore by the competent authority. Provided further that the condition of obtaining a minimum 45% marks in the aggregate at the qualifying examination shall not apply to the Natural Born sons/Daughters of parents belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes. Note: From the Session 1994-95 only candidates who have obtained a Bachelor's Degree of 10+2+3 pattern or those who have passed a one year Pre-post Graduate/Bridge Course Examination obtaining a Bachelor's Degree of 10+1+3 or 10+2+2 pattern shall be considered eligible for admission. Explanation: Provided that it would not apply in the case of such candidates who have passed their graduation examination prior to the academic session of 1991-92 and they will also have the option to clear the pre PG/Bridge Course for seeking admission or appearing in the examination for a higher course in the University or elsewhere. Explanation: Provided that it would not apply in the case of such candidates who have passed their graduation examination prior to the academic session of 1991-92 and they will also have the option to clear the pre PG/Bridge Course for seeking admission or appearing in the examination for a higher course in the University or elsewhere. Ordinance 209-E of the University of Rajasthan deals with bridge courses Arts examination and reads as under:- (1) The courses of study for the examination shall extend over a period of one academic year and there shall be an examination at the end of the academic year. (2) The examination shall be conducted by means of written papers and practical test (where required). (3) The subjects for examination shall be the same as are prescribed for B.A. Examination of 10+2+3 pattern out of which a candidate shall offer as many subjects/papers as are required to be offered for B.A. Part-III Examination. The courses of study for the examination shall be as prescribed by the University from time to time. (4) A candidate who after passing the B.A. (10+1+3 pattern) Examination of the University or of any other University recognised by the Syndicate as equivalent thereto, has attended a regular course of study for Bridge Course Arts Examination in the University or in an affiliated college for one academic year shall be eligible to appear at the Bridge Course Arts Examination. (5) A candidate for the said examination shall subject to availability offer the same subjects as were offered by him for the B.A. Examination of 10+1+3 pattern. (6) The rules for attendance, appearance at the examination as non collegiate candidates, submission of application form, remittance of examination and other fees, remuneration to examiners, determination of result (including award of division), supplementary examination, scrutiny and revaluation of answer-books, admission to next higher class etc. shall be the same as applicable to B.A. Part III Examination of 10+2+3 pattern. (7) A certificate shall be awarded to the successful candidate. The petitioner when provisionally admitted to three year LLB course in University of Rajasthan in 2014 appears to have studied only for a period of 13 years i.e. 10+1+2 and not 15 years 10+2+3, as mandated for admission to the three year LLB course in the University of Rajasthan. Thereafter he wrote the first year LLB examination on the strength of his provisional admission. Thereafter he wrote the first year LLB examination on the strength of his provisional admission. Result thereof however was not declared because the petitioner failed to submit the requisite migration certificate from the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, (MDU) from where the petitioner claimed to have graduated. The said certificate dated 18-12-2015 has now been appended to the writ petition as Annexure-3, but it has not been averred in the petitioner that it was submitted to the University. Thereafter the respondent University is stated to not have allowed the petitioner to write the II year examination of the three year LLB course on the additional ground that the petitioner had not done three years bachelor of Arts course but instead only a two year one from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak - which did not supply the eligibility to be admitted to the 3 year LLB course. Hence this petition. The case of the petitioner is that albeit he read for two years in bachelor of Arts course at the MDU and graduated as such therefrom, this was for the reason that prior thereto he had passed the intermediate examination 1986 from the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh Bhopal. It has been submitted that in the circumstances the graduation degree issued by the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak declaring that it was at a 3 year degree course brooks no enquiry on any aspect. Mr. Puneet Singhvi, counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that even otherwise the petitioner having been admitted to the 3 year LLB course with the University of Rajasthan and thereafter expanded a valuable year of his life therein, the respondent University of Rajasthan is estopped from discontinuing and preventing him from completing the course. Mr. Singhvi has further submitted in the alternative that in any event the petitioner's admission to the 3 year LLB course with the University of Rajasthan in 2014 is liable to regularised allowing the petitioner to simultaneously be admitted, to write and pass the one bridge course with reference to ordinance 209E of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances. He submitted that such a view has been taken by this court in the case of Ramdhari Singh Vs. He submitted that such a view has been taken by this court in the case of Ramdhari Singh Vs. University of Rajasthan & another, SBCWP No.9827/2015, decided on 10-9-2015, wherein it was held thus:- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the University while raising objection had not read the explanation. The explanation specifically states that those candidates have obtained graduation prior to academic session 1991-92 will have the option to clear pre Post Graduation/Bridge Course for seeking admission or appearing in the examination for a higher course in the University or elsewhere. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the note and the explanation require that the petitioner should clear pre Post Graduation/Bridge Course for regularisation of his admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that the petitioner shall pass the pre Post Graduation/ Bridge Course before completion of his LLB degree. To this, the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. Thus, in these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner may be permitted to attend classes of LLB Second Year and Third Year and result of the petitioner may not be declared till the petitioner pass out pre Post Graduation/Bridge Course. Once the petitioner give proof of passing out Pre Post Graduation/ Bridge Course, the University shall immediately declare the result of the papers undertaken by the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall be permitted to undertake papers of LLB Second Year and Third Year, but result shall not be declared till the petitioner pass out pre Post Graduation/Bridge Course.” Mr. Sameer Jain, appearing for the University has submitted that the petitioner was not eligible for admission into the 3 year LLB course in Rajasthan in view of the fact that he did not have the requisite 15 years education i.e. 10+2+3 pattern. It was submitted that the petitioner has completed only 13 years study i.e. 10+1+2, as evident from the averments in the writ petition (and annexures thereto), wherein it has been stated that at the relevant time when the petitioner went through schooling there was a provision that after Class X (Secondary) examination, if there was a gap of one year, and the student thereafter passed the intermediate examination, he would then be considered as Ist year passed and laterally admitted to the second year of 3 year Bachelor of Arts course. As such after his intermediate examination, the petitioner was admitted to the second year of the 3 year degree course of bachelor of Arts of MDU Rohtak-which was allegedly permissible at the relevant time. Counsel submitted that in the writ petition, the petitioner has not even sought to assert that he had studied for an aggregate period of 15 years in school and college to be eligible to be admitted to 3 year LLB course in the University of Rajasthan in terms of Ordinance 251. Counsel has further pointed out that even though the petitioner's bachelor degree issued by the MDU following purports to be a 3 year degree course, the petitioner has admittedly only studied II and III year in the said graduate course. Mr. Sameer Jain then submitted that even if the petitioner had done 14 years studies in school and college i.e. 10+1+3 pattern (which he did not) he was required to have undertaken a bridge course referable to Ordinance 209-E to complete the 15th year study to be eligible for the 3 year LLB course. Even this bridge course has admittedly not been passed by the petitioner, which renders him completely ineligible for admission to the 3 year LLB course in the University of Rajasthan. Mr. Sameer Jain further submitted that even otherwise Ordinance 209E was a transitory provision to smoothen effective 1994-95 the change of eligibility for admission to higher courses in the University from 10+1+3 pattern to 10+2+3 pattern and presently the said bridge course is even not available with University of Rajasthan as a period of 20 years has elapsed since Academic Session 1994-1995. Mr. Sameer Jain also pointed out that in the form of application for eligibility certificate submitted by the petitioner to the University at the time of admission, as relevant to the students migrating from any University or Board (except from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajastha Ajmer) it was provided that no candidate migrating from another University would be admitted to an affiliated college unless he or she had obtained an eligibility certificate from the University. And the admission of an immigrant student was subject to cancellation if he/she was found ineligible on receipt of the required original documents. Mr. Sameer Jain submitted that the petitioner's result of Ist year was not declared for reason of not his having at the relevant time submitted the migration certificate. Heard. Considered. And the admission of an immigrant student was subject to cancellation if he/she was found ineligible on receipt of the required original documents. Mr. Sameer Jain submitted that the petitioner's result of Ist year was not declared for reason of not his having at the relevant time submitted the migration certificate. Heard. Considered. The role of the court is to uphold the law and not make the law. Admissions in the University are regulated by governing ordinances. The petitioner sought admission into the 3 year LLB course in the year 2014 and ordinances as obtaining were/are relevant for determination of his eligibility. In terms of the ordinance 252 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinance for admission into the 3 year LLB course it is mandatory effective 1994-95 to have 10+2+3 pattern educational qualification i.e. secondary, senior secondary and a 3 year graduation. It is however provided as per Ordinance 209E for those who graduated prior to 1994-95 on the 10+1+3 pattern, a pre Post Graduate/bridge course of one year be passed to supply the requisite 15 years study eligibility for admission into the University's 3 year LLB course. The petitioner has admittedly not completed 10+2+3 years of study nor has he undertaken the requisite one year bridge course referable to ordinance 209E. In fact from the averments in the writ petition it is not even clear as to whether the petitioner studied for two years after the secondary examination before he passed intermediate examination from the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh Bhopal in the year 1986. In fact no rejoinder has been filed to the reply to the writ petition which asserts that the petitioner studied only in the 10+1+2 pattern for his Bachelor of Arts degree and not the 10+2+3 pattern to obtain his under graduate qualification. I find little force in the contention of counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of this court in the case of Ramdhari Singh (supra) that a student admitted to the 3 year LLB course of the University without the requisite eligibility should be allowed to continue and complete the said course and his admission regularized subject to his simultaneously passing the one year bridge course referable to ordinance 209E. For, one from the facts of the case on record it is clear that the petitioner has not even completed 14 years study, but only 13 years study owing to which even the simultaneous bridge course referable to ordinance 209E, post LLB admission sans eligibility, would be of little avail to supply the 15 years study to the petitioner for rendering him eligible for admission into the 3 year LLB course as per Ordinance 252 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances. Besides, even on facts the judgment of this court in Ramdhari Singh (supra) is distinguishable and cannot apply to the case at hand. In Ramdhari Singh (supra) the petitioner had studied 14 years (10+1+3) before his admission to the 3 years LLB course and the one year bridge course under Ordinance 209E theoretically supplied the shortfall of one year study qua eligibility under Ordinance 251 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinance for admission to 3 year LLB course. In the instant case, with the petitioner only having 10+1+2 years of study, even a one year bridge course under Ordinance 209E can be of no avail to the eligibility condition being supplied and his admission being regularised. Second, I am of the considered view that the case of Ramdhari Singh (supra) in providing for regularisation of an admission in the 3 year LLB course contrary to minimum eligibility qualification mandated by governing University of Rajasthan Ordinances renders unequals as equal in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The view taken by this court in Ramdhari Singh (supra) modifying and altering the scheme of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances qua admission to its 3 year LLB course willy nilly confers litigious benefit to those approaching the court. The fundamental purpose of law is certainty and that certainty, in my considered opinion ought not to be shaken for reason of invoking undeserved equity for students recklessly obtaining admission to courses in Universities/educational institutions without requisite eligibility. I also find the argument based on equitable estoppel untenable. Euitable estoppel can be invoked only where in the facts of the given case equity is clearly made out in favour of the petitioner. This, I am of the considered view, is not made out in the present case. I also find the argument based on equitable estoppel untenable. Euitable estoppel can be invoked only where in the facts of the given case equity is clearly made out in favour of the petitioner. This, I am of the considered view, is not made out in the present case. The petitioner claims to have graduated from MDU in the year 1988 and at the time of applying for admission to the 3 year LLB course in the University of Rajasthan, he must have been over 40 years of age. It was for him to have studied the eligibility criteria for admission to the 3 year LLB course in the University. This he does not seem to have done. The petitioner also did not submit his migration certificate in time which was a condition for his provisional admission. Yet he wrote Ist year LLB examination. Further the averments in the writ petition do not indicate specifically that the petitioner had even completed 14 years study. The averments in writ petition in this regard are vague and assertion to the contrary by the respondent University in the reply that the petitioner studied only 13 years not have been denied. Besides, the petitioner ought to have approached this court soon after the non declaration of the result of Ist year LLB examination. Yet without being admitted to II year LLB course, he continued to remain reticent and did not approach this court well in time. Instead he waited till the declaration of the date of the II year LLB examinations. It is well settled that delay by itself defeats the equity. I am of the considered view that in the facts obtaining, looking to the conduct of the petitioner, as also the delay in approaching this court, no ground for invoking equitable estoppel to aid the petitioner is made out. In the circumstances, the petitioner's result of Ist year LLB examination cannot be declared. Besides, the petitioner's result of the first year LLB examination written by him not having been declared, he could not have been allowed to be promoted to the second year of the LLB course. Nor does he claim to have been so promoted or attended classes. In the circumstances, the petitioner's result of Ist year LLB examination cannot be declared. Besides, the petitioner's result of the first year LLB examination written by him not having been declared, he could not have been allowed to be promoted to the second year of the LLB course. Nor does he claim to have been so promoted or attended classes. Ordinance 253-A of the University of Rajasthan Ordinance reads as under:- “A candidate who after passing the examination of the First Year has completed a regular course of study in the University Constituent College or in an affiliated college for the Second Year of LLB (Pros LLB (A) Course will subject to the other provision of the Act. Statutes, Ordinance, Rules and Regulations, be admitted to the Second Year Examination of LLB (P) or LLB (A) course, as the case may be.” It is not the petitioner's case nor could it have been that he satisfies the requirement of Ordinance 253A aforesaid. In the circumstances, this court cannot direct as prayed that he be allowed to write the II year LLB Examination. Consequently, I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.