Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ms. Vijay Thakur vs University Of Jammu And Ors. on 14 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995J&K108, AIR 1995 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 108
ORDER B.A. Khan, J.
1. Petitioner is a teacher in the Education Department. She was a private candidate for admission to the post-graduate course in bio-sciences and chemistry. The eligibility prescribed by the respondent-University for such candidates, was to possess teaching experience of 5 years in a school recognised by the J. & K. Government and the certificate in this regard had to be issued by the Director of School Education, Jammu. The University statutes also provided that the applications of candidates shall be accompanied by the requisite certificate from the Director and that no certificate will be entertained after the statutory last date prescribed for submission of the admission forms.
2. It appears that respondents 5 and 6 were granted admission to the course subject to the production of the requisite certificate by order dated 17-9-1993. This provided a cause to the petitioner to approach this Court to present this writ petition praying for quashment of the admission granted to these respondents and for granting her admission in their place.
3. Respondents were put on notice on 4-10-1993. They came to be represented by different counsel from time to time who sought opportunities for filing objections and resisting the petition. However, no objections were filed till 9-12-1993 when this Court considering the default committed by the University, granted provisional admission to the petitioner. The order was not initially implemented giving rise to contempt proceedings. However, it was eventually implemented and the petitioner is said to be undergoing the course presently.
4. Petitioner's case in short is that respondents 5 and 6 being ineligible were illegally granted admission at her cost and but for this she was entitled to be admitted to the course. The stand of respondent-University is that applications of respondents 5 and 6 were accompanied by a certificate from the District Education Officer (DEO) certifying their 5-years teaching experience and since they were found to possest, superior merit as against other candidates including the petitioner, they were consequently granted admission.
5. The matter raises some interesting issues which are more technical in nature and all that remains to be decided is: Whether the University authorities could give a go-bye to their own regulations and entertain a certificate issued by an authority other than the prescribed authority. According to Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, once the University statutes provided for a teaching experience certificate by a designated authority i.e., the Director of School Education, his certificate alone could be entertained and none else. He contended that the Director had no power to delegate this power at the back of the University Statutes and a certificate issued by a delegatee was an invalid certificate. The University-authorities, he urged, could not be left free to violate the statutes which additionally created a bar against entertaining any such application which was not accompanied by the requisite teaching experience certificate on or before the last date of receipt of the applications.
6. Mr. Thakur, on the other hand, submitted that the action of the University was bona fide and well intended. This is not a case where respondents 5 and 6 could be said to be lacking in the requisite teaching experience. The only deviation was that their application forms were accompanied by the teaching experience certificates issued by the DEO who had been delegated power by the Director of School Education. But for this, they had superior merit and figured at S. Nos. 1 and 2 of the select list and that is how it was thought proper to grant admission to them in recognition of their merit and subject to the production of a certificate issued by the Director of School Education which was only by way of an abundant caution.
7. In this scenerto all that remains to be seen is: Whether the University authorities could relax their own statutes as and when they liked and whether the delegatee Director could further delegate his power without any implicit or explicit authorisation by the doner?
8. It requires no precedent to say that the statutes and regulations, be that of the University or any other body, call for observance in accordance with their provisions. A statute cannot be allowed to be observed one way in one case and in different way in the other. Nor does it admit of any deviation according to the choice of the concerned Statutory Authority, Therefore, where a statute provides a prescribed Authority for issuing a certificate, it has to be by that Authority alone. And if any relaxation or deviation is permitted in this, it would lead to absurd results and make any certificate from any authority entertain-able according to the choice of the Competent Authority. A provision of the statute can be relaxed only where it reserves a power in this regard. Otherwise, if it is left to the sweet will of the Competent Authority to tamper and fiddle with the statutes, it would lead to their abrogation by and by. It is also settled that a delegatee cannot further delegate his power without the authorisation of the donor. A contrary view would lead to vesting of all the power in the delegator even where the donee had parted with only a part of his power.
9. There is no dispute that the petitioner possessed the requisite certificate and that her application was accompanied by the requisite certificate well within time. It is also the admitted position that respondents 5 and 6 did not possess any such certificate from the Director of School Education though their application forms were accompanied by a certificate issued by the DEO. It also goes undisputed that the University statutes designated the Director of School Education only as prescribed authority for issuing the requisite certificate and also provided that no application of any candidate shall be entertained without that certificate on the last date of receipt of such applications.
10. Given regard to this position, I find myself in complete agreement with the submission of Mr. Bhardwaj. After all, the University Statutes are the regulations of a seat of learning which arc meant to be observed and not to be interferred with save otherwise through a mechanism provided therein. Any other interpretation would expose the statutes to haphazard, whimsical and arbitrary implementation. In the premises I hold that wherever a statute provides for issuance of a certificate by a particular authority, it must be from that Authority alone. Similarly wherever it provides for submission of such a certificate within a particular time frame, it must be filed within the prescribed time. It is a different thing where the statute may authorise a relaxation of prescribed conditions.
11. Applying all this to the present case, I find that the respondent-University could not have taken into account the certificates issued by the DEO certifying the teaching experience of respondents 5 and 6. Nor had the Director of School Education any power to delegate his authority to any other officer for this purpose unless permitted by the University Statutes. The action of the authorities may be bona fide and well intended but so long as it leads to infraction of the regulations it cannot be sustained.
12. In this view of the matter, I would have quashed the selection of respondents 5 and 6, but, I am informed that they are about to complete the post-graduate course in bio-sciences and chemistry. It would be unjust and inequitable to throw them out at this stage morcso, when they, in fact, possess requisite experience and merit. The interests of justice, however, at the same time demand some relief to be granted to the petitioner who stands provisionally admitted under this Court order dated 28-12-1993. I am told that she had gone through a substantial portion of the course. Therefore, weighing the scales of justice even, I stop short of quashing the admission granted to respondents 5 and 6, but, at the same time direct the University authorities to regularise the admission of the writ-petitioner in the post-graduate course in bio-sciences and chemistry. She shall be allowed to complete her course and take examination in accordance with University rules and regulations.
13. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.