Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pranav Sharma vs University Of Raj And Ors on 4 March, 2020
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21331/2017
Pranav Sharma Son Of Shri Ashok Kishor Sharma, Residents Of
A-53, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Through Its Registrar
2. Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Raisan,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat India Through Its Director
3. School Of Petroleum Management, Pandit Deendayal
Petroleum University, Raisan, Gandhinagar, Gujarat India
Through Its Director
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mahesh Gupta with Mr.Mk Dhakad
For Respondent(s) : Mr.RA Katta, for the University of
Rajasthan
Mr.Prateek Mathur, for the respondent
Nos.2 & 3 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 04/03/2020 The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by making following prayers :
"Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby the Respondent no.1 University of Rajasthan may kindly be directed to add the marks of petitioner secured by him in the supplementary examination of paper Accounts and Business Stats of B.Com. Ist year and of the paper of Accounts and Business Stats-I of B.Com. IInd year and to issue the new marks sheet to the petitioner."
The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was the student of B.Com I year in the University of Rajasthan. The petitioner had (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) (2 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] appeared in B.Com (Three Year degree course) Examination held by the University of Rajasthan in the year 2014. The petitioner was declared fail in the subjects of Accounts and Business Stats but he was considered eligible for B.Com II Year Examination.
The petitioner, after undergoing studies of B.Com. II Year, appeared in B.Com II Year Examination along with due papers of B.Com. I Year in the year 2015 but he was again declared fail in the due papers of B.Com. I Year i.e. Accounts and Business Stats as well as in the paper of B.Com. II Year Examination i.e. Accounts and Business Stats. The petitioner claims himself to be eligible to appear in B.Com. III Year Examination and he also appeared in due papers of B.Com. I and II Year i.e. Accounts and Business Stats and the result of B.Com. III Year and due papers was declared by the respondent No.1 - University of Rajasthan on 22nd May, 2016, whereby the petitioner was declared pass in due papers of Accounts and Business Stats of B.Com. I Year and secured 87 marks out of 200, however, the petitioner could not pass in the subjects of Accounts and Business Stats of B.Com. II Year and as such, he was again required to appear in the supplementary examination.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, has pleaded that he again appeared in supplementary examination of B.Com. II Year held by the University of Rajasthan and result of the petitioner was declared on 27th June, 2017, in which, the petitioner secured 60 marks out of 100.
The petitioner has pleaded that he cleared all the papers of B.Com. (Three Years degree course) but before qualifying the supplementary examination of due papers i.e. Accounts and Business Stats-I of B.Com. II Year, the petitioner had appeared for (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) (3 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] admission in Common Entrance Test (for short "CET") for pursuing MBA course.
The petitioner has pleaded that after he was declared successful in CET, he was granted provisional admission in Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Raisan, Gandhinagar, Gujarat (for short "Pandit Deendayal University") - respondent No.3.
The petitioner, in his writ petition, has pleaded that after declaration of his result by the University of Rajasthan, Pandit Deendayal University has not taken into account the actual marks secured by the petitioner in his supplementary examination and only passing marks i.e. 36 have been taken into consideration.
The petitioner has pleaded that if the supplementary marks secured by him in both the papers is considered then percentage of the marks of the petitioner will be more than 50 percent and he would be eligible for admission in MBA course, as the minimum eligibility is of 50 percent marks.
The petitioner has further pleaded in his writ petition that after declaration of his result by the University of Rajasthan, he had approached the University to grant him mark-sheet, awarding actual marks, however, in view of the provision contained in Ordinance 193-B Note (i), the respondent - University of Rajasthan refused to accept request of the petitioner.
The petitioner has further pleaded in his writ petition that after getting provisional admission in MBA in the month of April, 2017, he pursued his studies and simply on account of not having 50 percent marks, the petitioner faced a situation where his admission, which was granted in MBA course, was also going to be affected.
(Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM)
(4 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] The petitioner, in his petition, has submitted that at the time of admission by way of CET, the petitioner was hopeful that actual marks, which will be awarded to him, will make him eligible for award of degree of MBA and as such, the petitioner, facing such situation of not getting the actual marks in supplementary exam, is being deprived to pursue MBA course.
This Court, on 7th December, 2017, passed an order to maintain status quo with regard to admission of the petitioner in MBA course and the interim order was subject to final outcome of the writ petition.
This Court further finds that in pursuance of the interim order, passed by this Court, the petitioner continued to pursue his MBA course and he also appeared in the examination of MBA I and II Year.
This Court finds that on 25th November, 2019, a direction was given to learned counsel for the respondent No.3 to bring result of the petitioner for perusal of the Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, on 3rd January, 2020, produced result of the petitioner for perusal of this Court and the photocopy of the result was also directed to be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.
On perusal of result of the petitioner, this Court found that he has cleared all the papers of MBA.
Learned counsel Mr.Mahesh Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner at the time of his admission in MBA, while writing CET, has not misled the authority and has also not concealed the fact.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had already appeared in his due papers, conducted by the University (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) (5 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] of Rajasthan and he was hopeful that after declaration of result, he will have minimum qualifying marks of 50 percent in graduation, making him eligible for admission in MBA course.
Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent No.3, while granting admission to the petitioner in MBA course, also took into consideration the appearance of the petitioner in supplementary examination and as such, there was no impediment for appearing in the CET.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner at no point of time has misled the authority and due to interim order, passed by this Court, he has pursued his complete studies of MBA.
Learned counsel further submitted that now the petitioner has qualified and passed all the papers of MBA and as such, this Court may pass direction to award MBA degree to the petitioner treating him eligible to pursue the said course.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1101/2017 (Rohit Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and in the case of Ms.Parul Agarwal Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 2002 (Raj.) 70.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - University of Rajasthan Mr.RA Katta has submitted that the petitioner did not pass his B.Com. I and II Year Examination in first attempt and as such, the petitioner was given chance to write supplementary examination.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner, when appeared in the supplementary examination, the Ordinance of the University specifically provided that the candidate, who writes and clears the subject in more than one attempt, only minimum (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) (6 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] passing marks in the subject for the purpose of determining division or for the purpose of admission in higher course, will be taken into account.
Learned counsel further submitted that the University has taken into account the relevant provision of Ordinance and in fact, the petitioner, who is claiming his right to secure 50 percent marks, cannot be considered in view of the provision contained in Ordinance 193B-1-VI.
Learned counsel submitted that as far as admission of the petitioner in MBA is concerned, the petitioner had taken his admission at his own peril without having minimum qualifying marks of 50 percent and as such, the University of Rajasthan has no roll in respect of the petitioner's admission in MBA course.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is required to be governed by the provision contained in the Ordinance and as such, claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 Mr.Prateek Mathur submitted that while writing CET, the petitioner did not have 50 percent qualifying marks in graduation and the petitioner, without being eligible, had appeared in the examination.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been permitted to pursue MBA course by virtue of interim order passed by this Court and after he has qualified MBA Final Examination, no equity can be claimed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel Mr.Prateek Mathur further submitted that the petitioner is required to have minimum 50 percent marks and he is required to possess eligibility of 50 percent marks in the qualifying examination and since, the petitioner does not fulfill the (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) (7 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] said requirement, as such, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
This Court finds that by virtue of the interim order, passed by this Court on 7th December, 2017, the petitioner has completed his MBA course.
This Court further finds that result of the petitioner, which was produced before this Court, also shows that the petitioner has cleared all the subjects of MBA course.
This Court finds that as far as eligibility of the petitioner to secure minimum 50 percent marks in graduation is concerned, the petitioner, at no point of time, had misrepresented/misled or concealed any facts from the authority.
This Court further finds that the petitioner was granted admission in MBA by the respondent - Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University and he pursued his studies for considerable time.
This Court finds that in the case of Ms.Parul Agarwal (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the similar situation and found that if the candidate has not misled the authority or concealed any fact from them and has pursued the studies, such student should not be deprived from pursuing the course, in which, admission has been granted. Relevant para of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference :
"13. Coming to the case of petitioner Parul Agarwal as already noticed she qualified RMAT and was admitted against the paid seat of NRI. While appearing at the Final Year of qualifying examination she was entitled to apply for admission to first year of M.B.A. She got (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) (8 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] her revaluation marks sheet when the M.B.A. Part I examinations were nearing completion. No condition was fixed by HIM for submitting the marks sheet of qualifying examination. She is also not guilty of suppressing any fact and was admitted by HIM after she qualified RMAT. However she only secured 48.5% marks in, qualifying examination. While screening her examination form the University did not ask for her marks sheet of qualifying examination.
14. In Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University (2), three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate.
It was further held that if neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinise the admission form, then the question of candidate committing a fraud did not arise as it is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by the due diligence fraud is not proved. 11 is neither as case of suggeslio falsi or suppressio veri. In the instant case petitioner Parul Agarwal did not append marks sheet with the examination form but still the University allotted her Roll Number and permitted her to appear in the MBA Part 1 examination. As the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed Parul Agarwal to appear in the Examination then by force of Prof. Surana Committee report or Ordinance 250-B(1) the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of petitioner Parul Agarwal. Even the marks sheet appended by the petitioners Vivek Sharma, Gajendra Pareek and Ajeet Kumar Ralhi were not scrutinised by the University authorities and they were allowed to take MBA Part I (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) (9 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] examination. In their cases also the University acquiesced in the infirmities which their admission forms contained.
15. - 18. XXXX
19. In the instant matters no relief was granted to the petitioners at the interim stage. They were not allowed to appear in the MBA Part I examination by the orders of the court. It is the University of Rajasthan who permitted them to appear in the examination and ultimately cancelled their admission in MBA Part 1 course on the basis of Prof. Surana Committee report which was not in existence, when the petitioners took admission in IIIM and Deepshikha and appeared in the examination. The report of Prof. Surana Committee was made applicable with retrospective effect and without providing any opportunity to the petitioners their admission was cancelled. It is no doubt true that admission cards were issued to the petitioners by the University provisionally but no reason was assigned as to why they were allowed provisionally. On the admission cards of the petitioners a seal was put by the University with the remark 'Permitted provisionally for want of....'.
20. Having examined the instant matters from all the angles no other option is left with me except to follow the ratio indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University (supra) and to hold that after allowing the petitioners to appear in the MBA Part I examination the University authorities had acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission forms contained and now on the basis of subsequent report of Prof. Surana Committee or by force of the University Ordinance the University has no power to withdraw the candidature of the petitioners. The act of University in cancelling the admission of the petitioners is arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India.
21. In view of what I have discussed herein above I allow the writ petitions and quash the impugned communications of the respondents whereby the admission of the petitioners in M.B.A. Part I course was cancelled. I direct the respondent University of Rajasthan to declare the result of the petitioners MBA Part I examination. If the petitioners qualify MBA Part I examination, the respondent University shall allow (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) (10 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] them to take the examination of MBA Part II after publishing a fresh examination programme. One month time is granted to the University of Rajasthan to implement his order. Costs easy."
This Court also finds that in the case of Rohit Mathur (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the doctrine of promissory estoppel in respect of the admissions made of the candidate to pursue the study and if the candidate is allowed to complete the course for substantial time, later on the authority cannot turn around and say that admission was wrongly given. The order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Rohit Mathur (supra) is quoted hereunder for ready reference :
"I am however of the considered view that the petitioner would have a case on the ground of promissory estoppel inasmuch as he was admitted to the Choudhary Charan Singh College of Dhaipaidi Alwar then affiliated to the respondent Rajasthan Agriculture University on full true and complete disclosure of his educational qualification which was then treated by the affiliated College as rendering him eligible for the two year diploma course in animal husbandry conducted by the Rajasthan Agriculture University. The petitioner after having studied for the first semester and having passed it and promoted to the second semester was only then informed that his admission to the course in issue was purportedly illegal for reasons of his ineligibility as the Science subjects studied by him in Uttra Madhyama were not equivalent to Physics, chemistry, biology at the secondary school level run by CBSE or RBSE. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No.4735/2008 where on the strength of interim orders, he has now admittedly written both the first year and second year of the two year diploma in the animal husbandry course and passed all papers. The only issue that now remains is the petitioner's enrollment and regularization of his admission/result. In the case of Harphool Singh Versus State, AIR 1981 Rajasthan, 8, this Court resorted to the principles of promissory estoppel to protect the continuation of a (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) (11 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] student admitted to AMBBS on the basis of a false caste certificate describing a Jat Boy as a Scheduled Caste and there under availing the seat in the said quota. The underlying reasoning in the aforesaid judgment was that a student having expanded a substantial period in a course of study, it would be unjust to deny him the right to complete the course. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner is on a far better footing. His admission in the two year diploma course of the respondent university is not alleged to have been based on fraud and mis- representation. Rather it was based on a full, true and complete disclosure of his academic qualification. At the relevant time, the petitioner's educational qualification was considered by the College affiliated to the University as making him eligible for admission into two year diploma course. He thereupon was admitted, paid the requisite fee, attended the classes and passed the first semester examination without any objections from any quarter. Thereafter on being denied enrollment by the respondent university he continued in the said course on the strength of the interim orders passed by this court in S.B.C.W.P. No.4735/2008and has written and passed all examinations required for concluding the course. At this stage to undo the petitioner's admission and two years of full study as a regular student would be most unjust. In law the petitioner in the facts of the case is entitled to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the respondent university for the actions of its affiliated College acting on its ostensible authority and admitting the petitioner. The Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, as the succeeding University to the Rajasthan University of Agricultural Sciences is equally bound.
In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the petition and set-aside the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner. The petitioner would be entitled to his enrollment with the respondent-university and all consequential benefits.
This Court finds that in the present case, though the petitioner has secured more than the qualifying marks, after his (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) (12 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] supplementary examination and his result was declared, however, impediment in declaring his result by awarding passing marks, is due to provision contained in Ordinance 193B-1 and Note appended thereto, this Court, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, as the petitioner has already cleared his all the papers of MBA and in fact, has completed the entire course, deems it proper to hold that the petitioner should be treated as eligible, as having secured qualifying marks in his graduation.
This Court, while considering the peculiar facts of the present case, deems is proper to direct the respondent - University of Rajasthan to award mark-sheet to the petitioner disclosing his actual marks, secured in supplementary examination.
This Court also makes it clear that due to the interim order, passed by this Court and further taking note of the fact of clearance of all the papers by the petitioner, present direction is given by this Court.
This Court is conscious of the fact that Ordinance is very specific in respect of award of only minimum passing marks in the supplementary examination, however, considering the facts that subsequent developments have taken place and now the clock cannot be put back or things cannot be reversed, as the petitioner has already qualified in the examination, as such, the present direction is given in the peculiar facts of the case.
This Court also holds that the respondent - Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, from where the petitioner has pursued his course, will also consider the petitioner to be eligible for the purpose of his admission and accordingly, the respondent - Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, will award mark-sheet and degree to the petitioner by considering him fully eligible.(Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM)
(13 of 13) [CW-21331/2017] The exercise of giving revised mark-sheet to the petitioner shall be carried out by the respondent - University of Rajasthan within four weeks and the consequential orders will also be issued like sending of revised mark sheet to respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 will issue degree of MBA to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks after revision and receipt of mark sheet.
This Court makes it clear that the present order shall not be treated as precedent, as this Court has considered the peculiar facts of this case only.
With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands allowed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Preeti Asopa / Monika / 98 (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:15:11 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)