Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Kumari vs Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University And ... on 10 September, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No. 23750 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 23750 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: September 10, 2014.
Parveen Kumari
...Petitioner
Versus
Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Muirthal
and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Satyawan Ahlawat, Advocate,
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Advocate,
for respondents No. 3 and 4.
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner who was pursuing her M.Tech in the college run by respondents No. 2 and 3 had been served with a disqualification notice and not allowed to take the final examination when the examinations were in the process for the 2nd semester in the 1st year M.Tech course. It was pursuant to the decision of the 1st respondent that the petitioner who had been admitted by the College was not eligible even as per the prospectus PREM SINGH 2014.09.15 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 23750 of 2013 2 issued. The eligibility, duration of the degree and the tuition fee were brought out in the prospectus and is re-produced as under:-
Programme Eligibility Duration Annual fee
M.Tech Bachelor's degree in relevant branch of 2 years `80,000
Courses Engineering/Technology from any Indian
Electronics and University included in the approved list of
Communication Association of Indian Universities (AIU) or
Engineering any foreign University recognized by this
Computer University for purpose of admission to this
Science and course scoring at least 50% marks in
Engineering aggregate.
The petitioner had a bachelor's degree in a science course and had done MCA, which is Master of Computer Application. The argument of the learned counsel is that the eligibility for Bachelor's degree in relevant branch of engineering must be also taken as included as MCA in relevant branch and the M.Tech course which she was admitted to was a course in computer science and it must be understood that MCA was more than equivalent to a bachelor's degree in engineering in computer science. I find the argument to be far fetched. A bachelor's degree in engineering in computer science cannot be, by any stretch of imagination treated, as equivalent to a master degree obtained in computer application after bachelor degree in a non-engineering course. The candidate simply did not have the necessary qualification as per the prospectus.
2. The counsel has an alternative submission to make that the requirement as stipulated in the prospectus itself was erroneous since the 5th respondent Maharishi Dayanand University has such eligibility criterion that would have made possible to a student to pursue M. Tech after doing MCA. Every university is autonomous in its own functions regulated PREM SINGH 2014.09.15 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 23750 of 2013 3 through the decisions of the executive body such as Syndicate, Senate or Academic Council and the procedure for admission or the eligibility criteria laid down by one university cannot be read as applicable for other university as well. The comparison to the 5th respondent alleged declared policy of taking MCA student also eligible for entry into M.Tech cannot be, therefore, seen any justifying circumstance.
3. I directed an query to the counsel appearing for the college as to how in the light of the very clear eligibility criteria spelt out in the prospectus they have allowed for the petitioner to be admitted. All that is stated that since she had MCA course, therefore, they believed that it could be treated as relevant degree in the relevant branch of engineering. The explanation is hardly convincing, for, a college that runs several courses had better known that a bachelor's degree in engineering course is not the same as a bachelor's degree in a non-engineering course and even a master's degree in non-engineering course. The admission made by respondents 3 and 4 was clearly wrong and if they have realized any fee from the student, they are bound to re-pay the same. The counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner has paid `84,000/- and had also spent a whole year study of the first year course. I also award a compensation of ` 1 lakh for the indiscreet act of respondents No. 3 and 4 that wasted the petitioner's career by one year. I will not really find fault with the university for any lapse or laches. All the details of the application appear to have been furnished to the university only in November 2012 and the decision to disqualify her has been taken within a reasonable short time of six months. The decision to PREM SINGH 2014.09.15 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 23750 of 2013 4 disqualify cannot also be faulted, for, as I have held above, the petitioner did not have the eligibility.
4. The writ petition is disposed of only providing for the relief of return of the tuition fee as mentioned above with interest @ 9% and the compensation as assessed. The amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Any delay or laches will result in the compensation quantified also to attract further interest @ 12% of the amount of compensation.
September 10, 2014 (K.KANNAN)
prem JUDGE
PREM SINGH
2014.09.15 14:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh