Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 252 (JK)

Sumit Yadav v. Vice Chancellor

2021-05-27

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2021
JUDGMENT : ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, J. 1. In all these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners are seeking a direction in the name of the Respondent-University to confirm their admission for B. Ed. Course Session 2018-20; accept entertain their RRs. register them along with the Batch of 2018-20 for B. Ed. Course; and also allow them to appear in the examination of Batch 2018-20 along with other candidates. Thus, common questions of facts and the law are involved in this batch of Writ Petitions, therefore, I propose to decide the same by virtue of this common judgment. 2. The case of the Petitioners is that pursuant to admission notification issued by the Respondent-University in the year 2018, they, in view of the situation as was prevailing in the then State of J&K (now Union Territory), could not apply in time and, subsequently, having requested the private B. Ed. Colleges for seeking admission in B. Ed. Course for the session 2018-20. It is stated that the Respondent-University, however, did not regularize confirm the admission of the Petitioners, despite repeated requests representations made in this behalf, constraining the Petitioners to approach this Court through the medium of Writ Petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 208/2020 titled Manvinder Singh and Others vs. Vice Chancellor, University of Kashmir and Others, which is one of the clubbed Petitions in the batch of Petitions on hand. In the said Writ Petition, the Court, in terms of an ad-interim order dated 31st of January, 2020, directed the respondent-University to consider the representation of the Petitioners for confirmation of admission for B.Ed Course, Session 2018-20. Pursuant to this interim order of the Court, the Respondent-University, thereafter, in terms of order dated 19th of October, 2020, rejected the claim of the Petitioners, which has been assailed by the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 1792/2020. Thereafter, the Respondent-University is stated to have issued notification No. F (B. Ed. 1st, 2nd & 3rd, 4th Semester) KU/2021 dated 10th of February, 2021, thereby notifying the date sheet for conduct of examination for B.Ed. 1st, 2nd Semester Batch 2018-20 and 3rd, 4th Semester Batch 2017-2019-Regular DDE and eligible backlog for the candidates who misused their examination in Session Nov-Dec, 2020. This date sheet notification, too, has been challenged by the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 305/2021. 3. 1st, 2nd Semester Batch 2018-20 and 3rd, 4th Semester Batch 2017-2019-Regular DDE and eligible backlog for the candidates who misused their examination in Session Nov-Dec, 2020. This date sheet notification, too, has been challenged by the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 305/2021. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners, who have come from different States of the country and having paid huge amounts to get admission in different private Colleges, have completed the studies for the Course in question, as such, the Respondent-University is obliged under law to regularize confirm their admission in tune with the mandate of policy in vogue. It is further submitted that in case the admission of the Petitioners is not regularized confirmed, the entire career of the Petitioners will get marred and they will be subjected to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated later on by any means whatsoever. It is pleaded that the consideration order passed by the Respondent-University in rejecting the claim for confirmation regularization of admission has been issued without taking into consideration all the relevant facts grounds projected by the Petitioners. 4. Respondents have filed Objections in W.P. (C) No. 208/2020, which, on the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondents, is treated as Objections to rest of the Petitions as well on behalf of the Respondents. The Respondents have resisted the averments made by the Petitioners in their Petitions. It is submitted that according to the admission procedure followed by the University of Kashmir, admissions to B. Ed courses in all the private B. Ed Colleges is granted and made by the University. It is contended that it is the University alone that initially invites applications and then allots students to various Colleges of the Valley and, thus the Colleges have no authority to admit students of its own. It is pleaded that the University did not have any knowledge about the admission of the Petitioners in any of the Colleges or their pursuit of the Course in respective Colleges. It is pleaded that the University did not have any knowledge about the admission of the Petitioners in any of the Colleges or their pursuit of the Course in respective Colleges. It is further submitted that the petitioners and concerned Colleges have, apparently, entered into some arrangement for their admission in next Session and concerned Colleges have, accordingly, agreed to facilitate their admission for the Session 2019-21, unmindful of the fact that in the meantime, the criteria for admission has undergone a change inasmuch as a candidate seeking admission to B. Ed Course in the general category is now required to have passed Bachelor’s Degree with 50% marks, while as a candidate belonging to reserved category is required to have passed the Degree with 45% marks, as opposed to the past practice of 45% and 40%, respectively. This development, as stated, has rendered the Petitioners ineligible for admission and, in order to overcome this impediment, the Petitioners, in connivance with the concerned Colleges, who stand to lose in the process if admissions do not fructify, have come with a new story to claim that they have been admitted for the Session 2018-20. The Respondents have proceeded to state that if the stand of the Petitioners is taken to be correct, then, in such eventuality, nothing prevented the concerned Colleges to submit the details of the Petitioners in time, i.e. 31st of May, 2019 or immediately, thereafter, with some genuine plausible reasons. It is averred that in essence, the Petitioners, having found that they would be ineligible for Session 2019-21, want predating of their admissions to Session 2018-20 with a view to render them eligible. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and after considering the matter, it has become axiomatic that the Petitioners in all these Petitions have taken admission to two-year B. Ed Course in different Colleges of the Valley on their own, without following the due procedure prescribed in the Statute of the Respondent-University. The Petitioners did not respond to the admission notice issued by the Respondent-University in time, but after expiry of the stipulated time period, claim to have secured admission directly in the College concerned which is contrary to the admission policy followed by the Respondent-University. The Petitioners did not respond to the admission notice issued by the Respondent-University in time, but after expiry of the stipulated time period, claim to have secured admission directly in the College concerned which is contrary to the admission policy followed by the Respondent-University. Besides, admittedly, no Registration Returns (RRs) have been forwarded to the respondent-University within the fixed timeframe by the concerned Colleges regarding the admission of the Petitioners. In such circumstances, the action of the Respondent-University in denying the regularization confirmation of the admission of the Petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the procedure governing the field. 6. It, needs, must be said here that in terms of the Statute in vogue in the Respondent- University, a B. Ed College affiliated with the Respondent-University is prohibited from making admission to B. Ed course on its own. It thus, follows that any admission made in violation of the University Statutes would not be binding on the University and that the University would be under no obligation to regularize confirm such admission. Once the Petitioners did not follow this procedure for seeking admission to the B. Ed course and purportedly sought admission from the Colleges on their own, the respondent-University is under no obligation to regularize confirm such admission. 7. The educational institutions, after admitting the students in wilful disregard of the University Statute, more often, make an effort to get the irregularities condoned in the name of academic interest of the students admitted in violation of the University Statutes. The erring educational institutions try to give the controversy the colour and complexion of an emotional issue and argue that the students, though enrolled in violation of University Statutes, should not be exposed to any penalty for the wrong committed by the institution. The Courts often fall prey to such persuasion made by the educational institutions and permit something that is not permissible under the Statutes. Such practices have been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. 8. The Courts often fall prey to such persuasion made by the educational institutions and permit something that is not permissible under the Statutes. Such practices have been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. 8. Apart from the above perspective, this issue, as involved herein this Petition, stands settled by a Coordinate Bench of this Court way back in the year 2012 in its decision dated 6th of December, 2012 rendered in OWP No. 1156 of 2012 titled Divya College of Education vs. State of J&K and Others, 2012 (4) JKJ 164 [HC] wherein the Court was of the view that any admission made in violation of the University Statute would not be binding on the University and that the University would be under no obligation to regularize confirm such admission. This judgment of the Coordinate Bench was assailed by the Petitioner therein through the medium of LPAOW No. 97/2012, which appeal came to be dismissed on 4th of June, 2013. 9. In the light of the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that any direction to the Respondent University to regularize the admission of the Petitioners in violation of the University Statute would be impermissible and not in tune with the principles that must guide exercise of Writ jurisdiction. That being so, I do not find any merit in these Petitions which shall, accordingly, stand dismissed along with all connected CMs. Interim directions, if any, subsisting as on date in any of the connected Petitions, shall stand vacated. This order, however, shall not preclude the Petitioners to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking damages against the Colleges concerned in accordance with the law. 10. Registry to place a copy of this judgment on each connected file.