Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 551 (RAJ)

Kiran Kasniya v. State of Rajasthan

2020-06-29

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2020
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The present petitions have been preferred on behalf of the students and the Institutions having common cause of protecting the admissions of the students in the Two Years' Animal Husbandry Diploma Programme (for short, 'AHDP Course'), who have sought admission in the said Course but are being discontinued by the respondents. 2. Though the present writ petitions have been reserved for judgment on different dates, but looking to the commonality of the issue(s) involved herein, they have been considered analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs: "i) That the respondent no.1 to 4 may be directed to give admission to the petitioners in the AHDP Course in session 2019-20. ii) Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice. iii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners." 4. Mr. R.J. Punia and Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned counsels for the petitioners have referred to their lead case to be S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4275/2020 (Devi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). Mr. Anil Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents has also referred to his reply and pleadings in this case as complete. However, Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has referred to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4354/2020 (Kiran Kasniya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), as a case where his reply and documentations were complete. Thus, the respective pleadings of the parties are being considered for final adjudication of the case, to which they have conceded. 5. The bone of contention in the present case is that the petitioners, after completing their senior secondary examinations, underwent the process for admission in the Two Years' AHDP Course for Academic Session 2019-20, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 22.07.2019. Vide the said advertisement, the applications were invited from all eligible candidates, which were to be filled online from 23.07.2019 to 12.08.2019. The concerned Institutions affiliated to the respondent-University were allotted 50 seats each for conducting the Two Years' AHDP Course. 6. Vide the said advertisement, the applications were invited from all eligible candidates, which were to be filled online from 23.07.2019 to 12.08.2019. The concerned Institutions affiliated to the respondent-University were allotted 50 seats each for conducting the Two Years' AHDP Course. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that it has been a past practice as well as a prevailing norm that the vacant State seats were to be filled by the Institutions considering them to be Management seats; the candidates, who did not join the AHDP Course till the last date of joining, were to be replaced by other eligible candidates, by the concerned Institution(s). 7. To support the contention of the past practice as well as prevailing norm, learned counsels for the petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court towards the letter dated 27.10.2009 [Annexure-3 of WP No.4275/2020] issued by the University, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- "................ In the event of some of the students not opting to join this course despite of allotment of the college, the state seats may remain vacant. It is, therefore, directed that the vacant state seats after the last date of joining i.e. 12th November, 2009, should be transferred to management seats and filled with the candidates who have applied for management seats . The eligibility criteria shall be the same as has been published in the prospectus available on the website as well as provided in the guidelines for filling up of management seats. ............... " Attention of this Court has also been drawn towards the letters dated 23.10.2010, 17.10.2011, 01.11.2012, 24.11.2014 and 12.01.2017, relevant portion whereof also read as follows: 23.10.2010 " .............. It is, therefore, directed that the vacant seats after the last date of joining i.e. 12th November, 2010, should be transferred to management seats and filled with the candidates who have applied for management seats. The eligibility criteria shall be the same as has been published in the prospectus available on the website as well as provided in the guidelines for filling up of management seats. The list of students admitted should be sent along with management seats admissions immediately, but in any case not later than 30 November 2010." 17.10.2011 " .............. The eligibility criteria shall be the same as has been published in the prospectus available on the website as well as provided in the guidelines for filling up of management seats. The list of students admitted should be sent along with management seats admissions immediately, but in any case not later than 30 November 2010." 17.10.2011 " .............. It is, therefore, directed that the vacant seats after the last date of joining i.e. 3rd November, 2011, should be transferred to management seats and filled with the candidates who have applied for management seats. The eligibility criteria shall be the same as has been published in the prospectus available on the website as well as provided in the guidelines for filling up of management seats. The list of students admitted should be sent along with management seats admissions immediately, but in any case not later than 30 November 2011." 01.11.2012 " .............. It is, therefore, directed that the vacant state seats after the last date of joining i.e. 7th November, 2012, should be transferred to management seats and filled with the candidates who have applied for management seats. The eligibility criteria shall be the same as has been published in the prospectus available on the website as well as provided in the guidelines for filling up of management seats. The list of students admitted should be sent along with management seats admissions immediately, but in any case not later than 30 November 2012." 24.11.2014 " .............. It is, therefore, directed that the vacant state seats after the last date of joining i.e. 24th November, 2014, should be transferred to management seats and filled with the candidates who have applied for management seats. The eligibility criteria shall be the same as has been published in the prospectus available on the website as well as provided in the guidelines for filling up of management seats. The list of students admitted should be sent along with management seats admissions immediately, but in any case not later than 01st December, 2014." 12.01.2017 " .............. It is, therefore, directed that the vacant state seats after the last date of joining i.e. 21th December, 2016, can be filled up from the applicants of managements seats and filled by the respective institutes in accordance with seat matrix attached. It is, therefore, directed that the vacant state seats after the last date of joining i.e. 21th December, 2016, can be filled up from the applicants of managements seats and filled by the respective institutes in accordance with seat matrix attached. The eligibility criteria shall be the same as has been published in the prospectus available on the website as well as provided in the guidelines for filling up of management seats. The list of students admitted should be sent along with management seats admissions immediately, but in any case not later than 21st January, 2017." 8. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that all the petitioners (students) before this Court, having the minimum requisite qualification, took admission in the AHDP Course on various dates and have already deposited their fee. 9. Learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners bonafidely have taken admission in the aforementioned Course, and the respective Institution(s) have sent the information of such admission to the respondentUniversity as well as the State Government. One of such information, as furnished, is dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure-5 of WP No.4275/2020), which reflects that the concerned Institution(s) had written to the respondent-University that they have given provisional admission to the candidates on the vacant seats and the status of their admission shall be provisional, and thus, amenable to rejection, in absence of grant of the necessary permission; however, permission was sought for continuance of their admission. Thus, the petitioners accordingly joined the respective Institution(s) and attended the classes. 10. As per learned counsels for the petitioners, the cause of petitioners' immediate grievance is that the respondent-University issued an enrollment notification dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure-6 of WP No.4275/2020), while enclosing therewith the list of students, and the students of the Institutions were allotted User IDs and Passwords, whereas the petitioners' names did not find place in the said list; however, the last date for enrollment, without late fee, was 28.03.2020, and thereafter vide subsequent notice dated 17.04.2020, such last date was extended upto 15.05.2020. 11. Upon hearing learned counsels for the petitioners, this Hon'ble Court passed an interim order on 15.05.2020 in the present writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.4275/2020, which was same as passed on 17.07.2019 (copy of which was annexed as Annexure-7 to the WP No.4275/2020) in an identical matter being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10408/2019 (Ankit Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). The said interim orders dated 15.05.2020 and 17.07.2019 read as under: Order dated 17.07.2019 passed in WP No.10408/2019: "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical matter being SBCWP No.8300/2019 (Pradeep Singh Meena & Ors Vs. Controller of Examination, Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Science, Bikaner & Anr.), this Court vide order dated 1.7.2019 has granted interim order, while issuing notices. Hence, issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also. Meanwhile, the petitioners in AHDP Course for Sessions 2018-19 shall be provisionally enrolled and permitted to participate in the examination. However, this order shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioners. List this matter alongwith SBCWP No.8300/2019." Order dated 15.05.2020 passed in WP No.4275/2020: " Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical matter being SBCWP No.10408/2019 (Ankit Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), this Court vide order dated 17.07.2019 while issuing notices has granted interim order. In view of the aforesaid, issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also. Meanwhile, the petitioners shall be provisionally enrolled in AHDP Course for Sessions 2019-20 and permitted to participate in the examination if they have attended requisite classes. However, this order shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioners. List this matter alongwith SBCWP No.10408/2019. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus, submitted that the petitioners are being victimized, even when they are bonafide students, who are qualified to hold the seat and want to undertake the Two Years' AHDP Course and are already undergoing studies as regular students vide admission granted to them in the respective Institution(s); some of the fee receipts are also on record. 13. In support of their submissions, learned counsels for the petitioners relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur, (1989) 1 SCC 399 , relevant portion of which reads as under: "17. It is submitted on behalf of the University that it was through mistake that the appellant was admitted. We are unable to accept the contention. It has been already noticed that both the Dean and the Vice-Chancellor considered the objections raised by the Officer-in-Charge, Admissions, and thereafter direction for admitting the appellant was made. It is submitted on behalf of the University that it was through mistake that the appellant was admitted. We are unable to accept the contention. It has been already noticed that both the Dean and the Vice-Chancellor considered the objections raised by the Officer-in-Charge, Admissions, and thereafter direction for admitting the appellant was made. When after considering all facts and circumstances and also the objections by the office to the admission of a candidate, the ViceChancellor directs the admission of such a candidate, such admission could not be said to have been made through mistake. Assuming that the appellant was admitted through mistake, the appellant not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission of the appellant. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, (1986) Supp1 SCC 740 . In that case, the appellants were admitted to certain private engineering colleges for the B.E. Degree Course, although they were not eligible for admission. In that case, this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the students whose admissions were subsequently cancelled and the order of cancellation was upheld by the High Court. At the same time, this Court took the view that the fault lay with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants and that there was no reason why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the management of these engineering colleges. Accordingly, this Court allowed the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. The same principle which weighed with this Court in that case should also be applied in the instant case. The appellant was not at fault and we do not see why he should suffer for the mistake committed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering. 18. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and also the impugned order dated January 20, 1988 of the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and direct that the admission of the appellant will continue." 14. Learned counsels for the petitioners further relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A Sudha Vs. University of Mysore, (1987) 4 SCC 537 , relevant portion of which reads as under: "18. Learned counsels for the petitioners further relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A Sudha Vs. University of Mysore, (1987) 4 SCC 537 , relevant portion of which reads as under: "18. The facts of the instant case are, more or less, similar to the Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case (supra). It has been already noticed that on the appellant s query' the Principal of the Institute by his letter dated February 26, 1986 informed her that she was eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course. It was, inter alia, stated in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 5()% marks in the optional subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. There is no dispute that the appellant had obtained 50% marks in those subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. The appellant was, therefore. quite innocent and she was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by none else than the Principal of the Institute in the said letter in regard to the eligibility of the admission in the First Year MBBS Course. In the circumstances, we do not think that we shall be justified in penalising the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the MBBS Course. Prima facie it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute but, in our view, the statement that was made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission in the MBBS Course, was on a bona fide interpretation of the regulations framed by the Mysore University for admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 1985-86, which to some extent suffer from ambiguity. The regulations should have been more clear and specific. Be that as it may, following the decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case (supra) while we dismiss the appeal. we direct that the appellant shall be allowed to prosecute her studies in the MBBS Course, and that her result for the First Year MBBS Examination be declared within two weeks from date." 15. Learned counsels for the petitioners have also relied upon an order passed by this Hon'ble Court on similar issue in Aravali Veterinary College, Sikar Vs. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences & Ors. Learned counsels for the petitioners have also relied upon an order passed by this Hon'ble Court on similar issue in Aravali Veterinary College, Sikar Vs. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15131/2018, decided on 25.09.2019), copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-P1 in WP No.4275/2020. The said order reads as under: "These writ petitions have been filed by the Veterinary Colleges, interalia praying that the respondent University be directed to permit them to fill up vacant seats, which remained vacant/unfilled after the completion of counselling done by the respondent Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Bikaner for academic year 2018- 2019. The petitioners have averred in the petitions that they are entitled to fill seats, which remained vacant after counselling as permitted by Clause - (9) of Regulation 7 of the Veterinary Council of India - Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education - Degree Course (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter referred as "the Regulations of 2008"). It has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that though they are entitled to fill the vacant seats at their end, in light of the stipulation made in Clause- (9) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2008, the respondent University is unnecessarily creating hurdles in their way of giving admissions to the students. It has been stated in the petition that when the petitioners institutions proceeded to give admission, respondent University initially refused, but however, later permitted admission to the students on the vacant seats. The communications/permission letter issued by the Registrar of the University in this regard have been placed on record, as Annexures - 2 and 3 for the academic years 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The petitioners have alleged that when the petitioners institutions wanted to give admission to the students for the academic year 2018-2019, the respondent University refused to issue identical letters, which it had issued on earlier occasions, for which they were constrained to approach this Court by way of filing instant writ petitions. The petitioners' contention is to two fold; firstly that the respondent University cannot restrain the petitioners-institutions to give admission to the students, once counselling is over and seats remain vacant and secondly that since the University has been giving permission for last 5-6 years, they cannot withhold such permission, for this year, without there being any justification. The petitioners' contention is to two fold; firstly that the respondent University cannot restrain the petitioners-institutions to give admission to the students, once counselling is over and seats remain vacant and secondly that since the University has been giving permission for last 5-6 years, they cannot withhold such permission, for this year, without there being any justification. On 29.09.2018, while issuing notices, this Court has passed the following interim order: "Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application to the respondents. Rule is made returnable in four weeks. In the meantime, the management of the college is provisionally permitted to fill the eighteen vacant seats as mentioned above without creating any equity either in favour of the College or the students. It is made clear that while admitting the students, a note shall be appended that the admission is being granted provisionally under this Court's order." Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, pointing out from the reply, submitted that the University, inprinciple has no objection, if the admission given to the students, pursuant to the interim order is upheld/ ratified. He however prayed that the petitionersinstitutions may be asked to take applicable fee, which they are entitled to charge, if a student is given admission against the State or Central quota. In other words his concern has been that the colleges should not be allowed to charge higher fees meant for management quota. It was also argued that if free hand is given to the petitioners institutions, they will ignore the eligibility criteria, to justify the indulgence of respondent-University. Mr. N.S. Acharya and Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and State respectively, adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Maheshwari. Before proceeding to decide the issue at hand, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant Clause i.e. Clause (9) of the Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2008, which reads thus: "7. Mr. N.S. Acharya and Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and State respectively, adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Maheshwari. Before proceeding to decide the issue at hand, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant Clause i.e. Clause (9) of the Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2008, which reads thus: "7. Selection of Students - (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx (3) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (9) The candidates selected through this examination shall be admitted in various recognised veterinary colleges as per the eligibility criteria prescribed in these regulations only and the last date of reporting of these candidates to the allotted University or Veterinary Institution shall be 15th September of that year irrespective of the closing date of admission of that University or Veterinary Institution for that year, if earlier, the vacant seats may be filled by the veterinary college or University by 30th September which shall be the final cut-off date for the admission and thereafter no admission shall be made." A simple look at the above regulation leaves no room for ambiguity that a Veterinary Institution or the University is entitled to fill the vacant seats, left after the counselling, by 30th September of each year after completion of counselling. It is to be noticed that between University and Veterinary Institution, a disjunction 'or' has been used, which undoubtedly means that either Veterinary Institution or the University can give admission to the students qua the vacant seats left after counselling. Admission to be given by the Veterinary Institution are not subservient or dependent to the University's approval. This Court is of the firm view that the University does not have any say, if the veterinary institution concerned gives admission to the students, once the counselling is over. The respondent University only grants affiliation to the concerned veterinary college/institution and enroll students of these colleges. Merely because the affiliation has been obtained from the University and the students are required to be enrolled with the University, the University does not have any power to refuse or grant permission to admit the students. In view of the aforesaid discussions, both the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order dated 29.09.2018, passed by this Court is made absolute. Needless to observe that the respondent University shall declare result of the students, who have appeared in the examination. In view of the aforesaid discussions, both the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order dated 29.09.2018, passed by this Court is made absolute. Needless to observe that the respondent University shall declare result of the students, who have appeared in the examination. As far as concern of the University with respect to eligibility is concerned, it goes without saying that none of the institutions shall admit the students, who are otherwise ineligible. If that be so, University can refuse to enroll. With respect to charging of fee also, the University does not and cannot have any say or role to play. The State Government or the Veterinary Council of India, if relevant law permits, can however make appropriate provisions or regulate the charging of fee with respect to the vacant seats to be filled in under Clause- (9) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2008. Needless it is to observe that if such fee is prescribed, the same shall not affect the students, who have been given admission prior to the prescription of fee. All the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of." 16. Upon a query being put to the learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondentUniversity, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid order dated 25.09.2019 has attained finality and has not been challenged by the respondent-University or the State. 17. Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University categorically submitted that in pursuance of Annexure-R/1 dated 08.08.2019 passed by the State Government (annexed with reply of University to WP No.4354/2020), a clear stand has been taken by the respondents that the admission to AHDP Course for academic session 2019-20 against the vacant seats shall not be granted, and thus, accordingly, the counselling was held in pursuance of the advertisement in question, and therefore, no right to the petitioners accrue, as there was a clear denial of permission to fill those vacant seats. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent-University further submitted that in the aforementioned order dated 08.08.2019, it was further reiterated that the State quota seat(s) remaining vacant after second round of counselling cannot be filled up by the private colleges themselves and the decision regarding admissions on the said vacant seats shall be taken by the State and the same shall be final. The relevant portion of the said letter dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure-R/1) reads as under:- 19. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has drawn also the attention of this Court towards the minutes dated 08.08.2019 of the meeting held on 31.07.2019 with respect to the admission in the AHDP Course for the Academic Session 2019-20. The relevant portion of resolution of the said meeting, as reproduced in the reply filed on behalf of the State/respondents (in WP No.4354/2020), reads as under:- "a) For the purpose of grant of admission in the two years animal husbandry diploma course, two rounds of counseling will be conducted. b) The decision of Counseling Board/Admission Board will be final; the Counseling Board/Admission Board is required to take decision as per the Guidelines / Circulars/ Regulations of the University and as per the eligibility criteria decided by the State Government on time to time basis. c) After the conclusion of 2nd round of counseling, the Counseling Board / Admission Board shall forward the proposals to the State Government in respect of seats remaining vacant under State Quota with justified comments upon the State Government will take final decision. d) In case of any dispute in the admission process, the decision of the State Government shall be final." 20. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has also shown to this Court Annexure-R/3 dated 19.10.2019 (annexed with reply of University in WP No.4354/2020), whereby the respondent-University had directed the private colleges that if any admission is given without prior permission of the State on the vacant State seats, then the same shall be the sole responsibility of the management of the concerned college itself. The said letter further stated that the decision taken by the State Government regarding the same shall be final. The relevant portion of the said letter dated 19.10.2019 reads as under: 21. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has also drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure-R/2 dated 14.11.2019 (annexed with reply of University to WP No.4354/2020), by which the respondent-University has written to the State of Rajasthan about the vacant seats with the request to take necessary decision regarding the same. Relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:- 22. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has also drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure-R/2 dated 14.11.2019 (annexed with reply of University to WP No.4354/2020), by which the respondent-University has written to the State of Rajasthan about the vacant seats with the request to take necessary decision regarding the same. Relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:- 22. Learned counsel for the respondent-University further pointed out that vide letter dated 20.03.2020 (Annexure-R/4 of the reply of University to WP No.4354/2020), a final response was given by the State Government in lieu of the letters written to it, and which was the first and the last answer of the State to the effect that no admission in the Course for Academic Session 2019- 20 can be granted after 31.10.2019. The said letter dated 20.03.2020 reads as under: "The admission to the Diploma Course on the left over seats for academic session 2019-20 cannot be made after 31-10-2019." 23. Learned counsel for the respondent-University relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) Vs. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 65 and submitted that in the said case law, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the time schedule provided in Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned, and for granting admission, the merit determined by competitive examination shall not be tinkered with by making a provision like grant of marks, by mode of interview or any other mode. 24. Mr. Anil Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents has stated that the complete decision-making of the State was in accordance with law, for not allowing the vacant seats to be filled by the private colleges themselves, as the specific decision was taken in a meeting of the State/respondents held on 31.07.2019, relevant portion of resolution thereof has already been reproduced hereinabove. 25. Learned Additional Advocate General further informed that the colleges were duly intimated about the decision of the State Government and they were directed not to give admission in the Course after the second round of counselling; and for this, learned Additional Advocate General referred to letter dated 19.10.2019, which is Annexure-R/2 of the reply of State in WP 4275/2020, a portion of which has already been reproduced hereinabove. However, it is appropriate to quote the same in its entirety as hereinbelow: 26. However, it is appropriate to quote the same in its entirety as hereinbelow: 26. Learned Additional Advocate General admitted that the State Government received frequent letters from the University to decide the fate of the vacant seats for the AHDP Course, Academic Session 2019-20. Learned Additional Advocate General also supported the decision communicated by the State to the University vide letter dated 20.03.2020, relevant portion whereof has already been quoted hereinabove. 27. Learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishabh Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 652 , relevant portion whereof, as relied, reads as under: "15. The question before this Court is not who is to be blamed for the present state of affairs - whether it is the students or the College or the State of Chhattisgarh. The question is really whether the rule of law should prevail or not. In our opinion, the answer is unambiguously in the affirmative. The College and the State of Chhattisgarh have not adhered to the law with the result that the petitioner became a victim of circumstances giving him a cause of action to proceed against the College and the State of Chhattisgarh being a victim of their maladministration. The plight of the petitioner is unfortunate but it cannot be helped. " 28. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that since the sole responsibility regarding provisional admission being given in the Course was that of the management of the college(s) concerned and the undertaking given by the students was specific, therefore, the provisional admissions should be cancelled, as it cannot be supported by law. 29. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that similar petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.20669/2019 - All India Association of Unaided Private Institutions (Aiaupi) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. was preferred before the Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court, which is still pending. Learned Additional Advocate General also pointed out that the Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 05.06.2020 has declined to grant interim relief in the said case. State of Rajasthan & Ors. was preferred before the Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court, which is still pending. Learned Additional Advocate General also pointed out that the Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 05.06.2020 has declined to grant interim relief in the said case. The said order reads as under: "The matter comes up on an application moved by the petitioner-institute relying upon an interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4275/2020 wherein the order has been passed in following terms:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical matter being SBCWP No.10408/2019 (Ankit Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) this Court vide order dated 17.7.2019 while issuing notices has granted interim order. In view of the aforesaid, issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also. Meanwhile, the petitioners shall be provisionally enrolled in AHDP Course for Sessions 2019-20 and permitted to participate in the examination if they have attended requisite classes. However, this order shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioners. List this matter alongwith SBCWP No.10408/2019." In the opinion of this court, the petitioner prima facie does not have any case as the admissions which have been made against the said quota seats are without permission either of the court or of the Government. Counsel has himself stated that all the admissions were made provisionally with a specific condition to the students that the same can be annuled. In view thereof, allowing them to appear in examination would be creating an equity in their favour and therefore this court most respectfully does not agree that the interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench should be extended to these colleges. It is also noticed that allowing them would also give a post facto sanction of their admission from the back date that is w.e.f 2019-20. In view thereof, the application for seeking interim prayer is dismissed. List this case again for final arguments on 13.7.2020." 30. It is also noticed that allowing them would also give a post facto sanction of their admission from the back date that is w.e.f 2019-20. In view thereof, the application for seeking interim prayer is dismissed. List this case again for final arguments on 13.7.2020." 30. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent law cited, this Court finds an unchallenged and all acceptable norm prevailing for admissions in AHDP Course, in which the vacant State seats were to be filled by the respective college(s) from amongst the candidates who applied under the management quota, while treating them to be management seats. 31. On a bare perusal of Annexure-3 of WP No.4275/2020 (letters dated 27.10.2009, 23.10.2010, 17.10.2011, 01.11.2012, 24.11.2014 and 12.01.2017), it is established that if the State seats remain vacant after the counselling, the same was to be filled up by the respective Institutions, while following the same eligibility criteria as published in the respective advertisement. 32. Apart from the aforesaid orders passed by the University and the State, it is accepted by the respondents that the modus operandi until now, for more than a decade, was that the vacant seats were permitted to be filled by the respective college(s), which shall be accepted by the University as well as State Government, as valid admissions to the AHDP Course. 33. The University, which is the best Expert Body in the academic matters and which could have explained the reason for not permitting students, like the present petitioners, to be admitted in the AHDP Course, has miserably failed to point out any such reason, which could reflect a consideration being made by the expert committee to arrive at a conclusion that such vacant seats should not be filled by the Institution(s) concerned. The sole reason given by the respondent-University to arrive at a decision of not permitting such admissions is minutes dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure-R/1 of reply of State to WP No.4275/2020), which is reiteration of the meeting held on 31.07.2019. 34. A bare reading of the aforementioned minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019 clearly points out that the Counselling Board/Admission Board was to forward proposals to the State Government in respect of the seats remaining vacant under the State quota with the justified comments, upon which the State Government was to take final decision. 34. A bare reading of the aforementioned minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019 clearly points out that the Counselling Board/Admission Board was to forward proposals to the State Government in respect of the seats remaining vacant under the State quota with the justified comments, upon which the State Government was to take final decision. However, at the cost of repetition, relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019, as reproduced in the reply filed on behalf of the State/respondents and reproduced hereinabove, reads as under: c) After the conclusion of 2nd round of counseling, the Counseling Board / Admission Board shall forward the proposals to the State Government in respect of seats remaining vacant under State Quota with justified comments upon the State Government will take final decision. 35. Thus, the State as well as the respondent-University are at complete loss to explain their stand that as to how a final decision regarding not giving admissions in the AHDP Course had already been taken in pursuance of the minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019. A bare perusal of the minutes dated 08.08.2019 of the meeting held on 31.07.2019 points out that until now, in respect of the AHDP Course, such vacant seats were being filled by the concerned Institution(s); however, for the purpose of the academic session 2019-20, the decision regarding such vacant seats was left open to be taken by the State Government. 36. The stand of the State and the respondent-University is laid on a very weak foundation, as they have tried to justify their decision on the ground that they have already taken a decision to the effect that the admissions on such vacant seats are not to be given and the same has been communicated to the concerned Institution(s), whereas to the contrary, the language of aforementioned minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019 has clearly kept a ray of hope in the mind of the students that the fate of the vacant seats shall be determined by the State in future, which shall be final. 37. 37. The State as well as the University have miserably failed to point out even a single line in the minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019, which could reflect that a final decision has been taken stipulating that the admissions on the vacant seats of the Course shall not be granted by the Institution(s) concerned, and in the event of any such admission being granted, the same shall not be acceptable to the State or the University, in future. In absence of a straight decision, the students cannot be laid at fault to have gone in for the vacant seats, which were admittedly being continuously filled by the concerned Institution(s) for more than a decade, as a settled legal practice/norm. 38. Leave apart the students, the respondent-University itself was hopeful that a final decision regarding such vacant seats would be taken by the State, and for this, repeated letters were written to the State Government, one of which was Annexure-R/2 dated 14.11.2019 (annexed with reply of University to WP No.4354/2020). 39. The conduct of the respondent-University as well as the State is very clear, and their minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019 as well as the correspondence have reflected that a final decision regarding the vacant seats was yet to be taken, and thus, they have misled the students to believe that like past ten years and more, this year also such a decision shall be taken, and therefore, there is no reason why an adverse decision be taken, while doing away with the past precedent applicable for such a long time. Moreover, from the record it is clear that the first final decision regarding vacant seats of the AHDP Course for the academic session 2019-20 has been communicated by the State only on 20.03.2020, when the State came out with a cryptic letter stating that the learned Advocate General opined that the admissions in the Course on the left over seats for the academic session 2019- 20 cannot be made after 31.10.2019. This is the first demonstrable thinking of the denial made by the State and the University, and thus, if any action is taken by the students, particularly to seek admission in the Course, in view of a continuing norm, rule and modus operandi being adopted for last so many years, then there is no reason why the students can be blamed for such an action on their part to take such risk of getting the provisional admission through the Institution(s) concerned. 40. Upon being repeatedly asked, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondentUniversity have miserably failed to point out any slightest indication from the record to show a categorical decision having been arrived at, prior to 20.03.2020, stipulating that the vacant seats shall not to be filled by the Institution(s)/College(s) concerned. 41. The total rebuttal reflected in the reply and documents filed by the State as well as the respondent-University lays weight on the minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019, wherein too, the conclusions are inconclusive, as the decision regarding the vacant seats for the academic session 2019-20 for AHDP Course has been left open to the discretion of the State, and it is needless to say that the discretion of the State on record for last eleven years has been that the vacant seats can be filled by the concerned Institution(s)/College(s). 42. There is no quarrel regarding the eligibility of the students, the present petitioners, who have already taken admission in the Course and deposited the requisite fee. 43. Upon being asked, a categorical statement was made by learned counsels for the petitioners that all the students, including the present petitioners, had taken admission in the Course much prior to the distinctive denial made by the State Government vide letter dated 20.03.2020. 44. The interim orders granted by this Court in these matters earlier had already given a right to the petitioners to be in the class, and this Court is making no intervention as far as minimum eligibility criteria, including requisite attendance is concerned, but certainly expects that if such eligibility criteria is fulfilled, the petitioners cannot be denied the right to complete their AHDP Course (academic session 2019-20). 45. 45. This Court does not wish to substitute its wisdom over the discretion which are available with the State of Rajasthan and the University, but certainly cannot permit them to make a mockery of the academic courses by exercising their discretion in such a casual and dilapidated manner. 46. This Court is peeved by the way in which the student matters are being handled by the State Government and the respondent-University, and thus, this Court is constrained to make intervention, while in normal course, the Courts ought to keep restraint in interfering with the admission processes of the academic courses. 47. It is a settled law that the procedure of such admission processes, which includes eligibility criteria and other conditions should be best left to the experts, but due to the manner in which the dillydally is reflected in the documents on record in the present writ petitions, this Court is left with no other option but to come to the rescue of the hapless students, more particularly, when in the present case, the fate of the vacant seats was not made clear in the advertisement issued on 22.07.2019. The online counselling instructions also did not have any clarity on the issue. The crucial minutes of meeting held on 31.07.2019 kept the issue of vacant seats open for consideration. The first communicable decision on record, as mentioned above, admittedly is only dated 20.03.2020. 48. In view of what has been discussed and observed hereinabove, this Court finds the concept of 'legitimate expectation' to be very pertinent for the present adjudication. 49. 'Legitimate Expectation' means that a person may have a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by public authorities owing, amongst others, to some consistent practice in the past by the concerned authority. According to this concept, a public authority can be made accountable in lieu of a legitimate expectation. Thus, the doctrine of legitimate expectation pertains to the relationship between an individual and a public authority. 50. Legitimate expectation, obviously, is not a legal right, but it is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from an established practice. The term 'established practice' refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. 50. Legitimate expectation, obviously, is not a legal right, but it is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from an established practice. The term 'established practice' refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. In short, a person can be said to have a 'legitimate expectation' of a particular treatment, if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. Therefore, it can be said that this doctrine is a form of a check on the administrative or public authority. 51. The necessity for application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation arises when an administrative Body, by reason of a past practice or conduct, stirred an expectation into the mind of the concerned individual, which would be within its powers to accomplish, unless some superseding public interest comes in the way. However, the respondent-University as well as the State have completely failed to show from the record such superseding public interest involved herein, which is coming in their way to follow the past practice prevailing for last more than a decade, regarding admissions on the vacant seats in the AHDP Course. 52. In the opinion of this Court, the present petitioners have completely been able to make out their case for justifying the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the present case, as the legitimate expectation arose in the minds of the students (the present petitioners), by the past practice of the State as well as University, that they shall also be treated in the like manner, while dealing with vacant seats of AHDP Course. Thus, the past practice, which is a condition precedent for application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and which is prevailing for more than a decade, is clearly discernible from the facts of the present case. 53. Thus, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions: (i) All eligible candidates who have paid their fee and have taken admission in the Course on the vacant seats after the second counselling and prior to the communication dated 20.03.2020, such admissions shall stand validated. (ii) The State shall give requisite permission for conducting the AHDP Course for Academic Session 2019-20 accordingly, to the University and the College(s) concerned for legalizing the admissions on vacant seats after the second counselling. (ii) The State shall give requisite permission for conducting the AHDP Course for Academic Session 2019-20 accordingly, to the University and the College(s) concerned for legalizing the admissions on vacant seats after the second counselling. All other eligibility criteria and essential conditions shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned. (iii) The present judgment shall apply to all the students, who have already taken admission in AHDP Course for the Academic Session 2019-20 on vacant seats after second counselling; however, in future, while taking the necessary decision, the respondents are directed to lay down their specific policy and norm/ rule regarding filling up of the vacant seats categorically in the advertisement itself or before the final counselling, so that the students stand cautioned at the threshold itself, regarding their ultimate fate and are not left in a lurch on account of delayed decision-making. 54. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of.