Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Singh & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 18 July, 2018
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3577 of 2015 Reserved on: 16.07.2018 Decided on: 18.07.2018 Rakesh Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners .
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioners: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Addl. A.G., with Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Dy. A.G., for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Dilip Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Shrishti Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4.
Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, for
respondent No. 5.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
The petitioners have filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive reliefs:-
(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued whereby quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 20.04.2014 (Annexure P-14) and the advertisement dated 01.08.2015 (Annexure P-15).
(ii) That the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 may very kindly be directed to give the approval for the Ph.D. Programme of Chemistry stream w.e.f. 2011 in favour of the petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 23:03:49 :::HCHP 2(iii) That the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 may kindly be directed to pay the adequate compensation in favour of the petitioners for the mental agony, humiliation and harassment being faced by the petitioners.
.
2. It appears that respondents No. 3 and 4 - University issued an advertisement on 06.08.2011 regarding entrance test being conducted for Ph.D. programme in different disciplines including Chemistry. The petitioners being eligible applied for the same and participated in the entrance examination conducted on 12.08.2011. Thereafter, they were admitted to the Ph.D. programme and had been pursuing the same.
3. Admittedly, the Ph.D. being conducted by the respondents - University was without prior approval of the State Government and, therefore, the State Government vide its order dated 20.04.2014 declared the admission made by the University in Ph.D. Course in the year 2011-12 as null and void. The only ground urged by the petitioners is that since they have completed 60% of their course, therefore, they be permitted to continue with the Ph.D. and the decision of the State Government be made applicable prospectively.
4. Even though replies have been filed by all the respondents, however, it is not necessary to refer to them, in view of the specific provision contained in Section 31(5) of The Arni ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 23:03:49 :::HCHP 3 University (Establishment and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2010, which reads thus:-
"31(5) The University shall seek prior approval of the State Government for admitting new students in subsequent years .
in the existing courses or for starting new courses which shall be subject to recommendations of the inspection committee set up for the purpose. This shall be applicable till the first batch of final year students are admitted."
5. It is vehemently contended by Shri M. L. Sharma, Advocate, that since the petitioners have completed more than 60%
6.
r to of the course, therefore, in equity they should be permitted to pursue Ph.D. course.
It is more than settled that an action to be taken in a particular manner as provided by a statute, must be taken, done or performed in the manner prescribed or not at all. More than eighty years back, the Hon'ble Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor (AIR 1936, PC 253) held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the things must be done in that way or not at all and this has been approved and further expanded by the Hon'ble Supreme court in catena of judgments (Refer: Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and anr. vs. State of Vindh-P, AIR 1954, SC 322; Deep Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Ors, AIR 1964, SC 358; Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad, 1999 (8) SCC 266 ; Dhananjaya Reddy vs. State of Karnataka, 2001 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 23:03:49 :::HCHP 4 (4) SCC 9; State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ambay Cements and anr. (2005) 1 SCC 368 ; Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Essar Power Limited, 2008 (4) SCC 755; Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. .
Regional Director, ESIC, Hyderabad & Ors., AIR 2015, SC 2764; and Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. vs. Sant Singh and Ors. 2016 (5) JT 389).
7. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim "Expressio unius est exclusion alterius" meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following some other course is not permissible.
8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, obviously, the University could not have started a new course without the approval of the State Government. That apart, it is more than settled that what is administered in Court is justice according to law and considerations of fairplay and equity, however, important they may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law.
Clearly settled is the principle, the consideration of equity cannot play and do not permit the High Court to pass the order contrary to law.
9. No doubt, equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably, but equity cannot override written or settled law and where there is conflict between law and equity, the former has to prevail.
::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 23:03:49 :::HCHP 510. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the admission made by the University for the Ph.D. course for the year 2011-12 was null and void as the .
University had not sought any prior approval of the State Government.
11. Having said so, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners in claiming damages against respondents No. 3 and 4 University in accordance with law. r
12. It, however, does not mean that this Court has conferred, granted or for that matter even recognised the right of the petitioners to claim damages. Therefore, it is clarified that in the event of the petitioners approaching the competent court of jurisdiction for grant of damages and any relief akin thereto, the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law on merits without being influenced by any observations that may have been made in this judgment.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
July 18, 2018 (sanjeev) ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 23:03:49 :::HCHP