Delhi High Court
Manish Tanwar vs Principal, Rajdhani College And Ors. on 2 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996VAD(DELHI)54, 63(1996)DLT906
JUDGMENT C.M. Nayar, J.
(1) RULE. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2) The present petition seeks direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner in B.A.(Pass) course First year in Rajdhani College, New Delhi, respondents 1 and 2 herein.
(3) The petitioner applied for admission in the above said college by filling up the necessary form for the Session 1996-97. The date of birth of the p (4) The main contentions are that there is no upper age limit prescribed by the University of Delhi and the respondent college cannot refuse admission merely on the ground that the petitioner is over age by four months as on October 1,1996 and the cancellation, as a consequence, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional.
(5) Respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit wherein it is admitted that the University Authorities have laid down only the minimum age of the students to be admitted in the first year in the college. The maximum age limit has not been prescribed. However, the Staff Council by virtue of powers vested by ordinance Xviii is authorised to regulate admissions and as a consequence upper age has been prescribed. Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the counter affidavit read as follows: "7. Para 7 is wrong and is denied. The University authorities have laid down only the minimum age for students to be admitted in the First Year of the colleges. The maximum age has not been provided by the University. The Staff Council by virtue of the powers vested by Ordinance Xviii is statutorily authorised to regulate admissions to colleges and also prescribe conditions which are not inconsistent with the conditions already provided for by the University. No rule of the University has been flouted. 9. Para 9 is denied. No upper age limit has been fixed by the University. However, college authorities can fix the upper age limit. Had the University fixed the upper age limit, the college authorities could not have fixed an age different to the one fixed by the University but since no upper age limit has been fixed by the University, the college authorities are authorised to provide for such an age."
(6) Reference is made to the Minutes of the Admission Committee Meeting held on June 19, 1996, which is filed as Annexure R-I. The relevant guideline which has been referred to at the time of arguments reads as follows : "2. The candidates who have not completed the age of twenty years on 1st October of the admission year shall be considered for admission to any course in the college. This condition may, however, be relaxed upto two years in the case of admission on the basis of sports & co-curricular activities."
(7) The learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has, accordingly, argued that the college was vested with the rights to regulate the admission including framing of the guidelines to prescribe the maximum age and there is no arbitrariness and ationality in the same. He has referred to Clause 2-A of Ordinance I relating to Qualification for Admission to the University" which reads as follows : 2-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance, its Clause 2 hereof will read as under in respect of admission to the 1st year of any Degree Courses of the University with effect from the academy year 1979-80 and in respect of under mentioned Post-graduate courses with effect from the academy year 1982-83; No person shall be qualified for admission to the University unless, before the first day of October in the year in which he seeks admission, he is 17 years of age or if he seeks admission to the Ist year of the M.A., M.Sc., M.Com., M.B.A., LL.B., B.Lib.Sc. or B.Ed. Course he is 20 years of age. Provided that the Vice-Chancellor may, on the basis of individual merits, relax the age limit up to a maximum period of one year. Provided further that if a person otherwise eligible to get admission in the University is not governed by 10+2+3 scheme, he shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Clause 2 above."
(8) Further reference is made to Clause 6-A of Ordinance Xviii which vests powers in the Staff Council to frame regulations, which reads as follows : : "6-A. (1) There shall be a Staff Council in every College. (2) All the members of the teaching staff, the Librarian and the Director of Physical Education shall constitute the Staff Council. (3) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances of the University, the Principal shall act as Principal-in-Council in respect of matters on which Staff Council is required to take decisions. (4) (a) The Principal shall be ex-officio Chairman of the Staff Council. (b) The Council shall elect its Secretary, who shall hold office for a : term of one year. The Secretary may be re-elected for a second term but no person shall hold office of Secretary for more than two: consecutive terms, (5) (a) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council shall take decisions in respect of the following matters : (i) Preparation of College time-table. (ii) Allocation of extra-curricular work of teachers not involving payment of remuneration. (iii) Organising extra-curricular activities, including cultural activities of students, sports, games. National Service Scheme and other social services schemes and academy societies. (iv) Laying down guidelines for purchase of library books and laboratory equipment in consultation with the appropriate departments, (v) Organising admission of students. (b) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council shall make recommendations in respect of the following matters : (i) Formulation of recommendations on introduction of new teaching posts in the departments and expansion of the existing departments; (ii) Formulation of admission policy within the framework off the policy laid down by the University; (iii) Formulation of guidelines regarding arrangements for the residence and welfare of students in consultation with appropriate students' organisations; (iv) Formulation of guide-lines regarding discipline of the students; (v) Formulation of policies for recommending names of teachers for participation is seminars and conferences and financial assistance to teachers. Note: The administrative staff of the college will not be within the purview of the Staff Council."
(9) It is, therefore, contended that the Staff Council has applied its mind and framed the guidelines in the interest of the Institute and no fault can be found with the same. Such guidelines are framed on the basis of power vested in the Staff Council by the above Ordinance. Reliance is placed on the judgment as reported in Punjab University, Chandigarh and Another v. Ashwinder Kaur, . This case related to admission to Master of Library Course where the Court held that the Competent Authority can lay down higher qualification than the minimum prescribed for admission when Board of Controller which is creation of Regulations is the Authority to admit students to the department concerned. The criteria, it was held on the facts of this case, in no way ran counter to the Regulations framed by the University. These facts do not have any relevance to the contentions raised in the present petition which only deals with the fixation of upper age limit when the University Regulations do not prescribe the same.
(10) The learned Counsel for the University of Delhi, respondent No. 3 herein, has fairly stated that there is no bar for admission to a student merely on the ground that he is over age. The University has only prescribed the minimum age of 17 years for admission to B.A.(Pass) First year course but has not prescribed any upper age limit. The Admission Committee of the respondent college on its own in a meeting held on June 19,1996 prescribed the age of 20 years as on 1st October of the admission year though no such condition was indicated in the prospectus issued for the academy year 1996-97. The following paragraphs which formulated the "Admission Requirements" as incorporated in the Prospectus reads as follows : "1. Candidates must have completed 17 years of age on 1st October of the year in which they seek admission. 2. The minimum score for admission to B.A. (Pass)/B.Sc (Gen) is 40%, B.A. and B.Com Honours courses is 45% and to B.Sc. (H) courses is 50% (PCM) in class Xii examination recognised by the University of Delhi."
(11) The reading of the above makes it clear that no such upper age limit was prescribed when the prospectus was issued to the students seeking admission to the college. It was subsequently framed as a guideline and the petitioner, as a consequence, was rejected as he was held to be over age by four months as on October 1, 1996. Sub-clause (5)(b)(ii) of Clause 6-A of Ordinance Xviii as reproduced earlier clearly specifies that the formulation of admission policy has to be within the framework of the policy laid down by the University. In the present case, the University has prescribed no upper age limit and the Admission Committee of the College chose to do so on its own volition. It is also not certain as to whether the respondent college has acted in terms of Clause 6-A, as such guideline has only beer framed by the Admission Committee in its meeting held on June 19, 1996. The constitution of Staff Council in terms of the above clause has not been explained Respondents 1 and 2, therefore, could not just debar the petitioner from admission to the college on the ground of guideline frame by the Admission Committee on the eve of admission to the Course. The Supreme Court in the judgment as reported in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, has clearly recognised the right to education as one or transcendental importance. It has fundamental significance to the life of the individual and the nation. Reference to the judgment in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India, was made in paragraph 33 and reiterated ir paragraph 166 which read as follows : "33. Now coming to life: this Court interpreted in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India, (pp.l83-84, para 10). "... It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country, assured under the interpretation given to Article 21 by this Court in Francis Mullin case to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and human conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State - neither the Central Government nor any State Government - has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials. Since the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39, Articles 41 and 42 are not enforceable in a Court of law, it may not be possible to compel the State through the judicial process to make provision by statutory enactment or executive fiat for ensuring these basic essentials which go to make up a life of human dignity but where legislation is already enacted by the State providing these basic requirements to the workmen and thus investing their right to live with basic human dignity, with concrete reality and content, the State can certainly be obligated to ensure observance of such legislation for inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21, more so in the context of Article 256 which provides that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State."
166. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha this Court held that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 does take in "educational facilities". (The relevant portion has been quoted hereinbefore) Having regard to the fundamental significance of education to the life of an individual and the nation, and adopting the 912 reasoning and logic adopted in the earlier decisions of this Court referred to hereinbefore, we hold, agreeing with the statement in Bandhua Mukti Morcha that right to education is implicit in and flows from the right to life guaranteed by Article 21. That the right to education has been treated as one of transcendental importance in the life of an individual has been recognised not only in this country since thousands of years, but all over the world. In Mohini Jain the importance of education has been duly and rightly stressed. The relevant observations have already been set out in para 7 hereinbefore. In particular, we agree with the observation that without education being provided to the citizens of this country, the objectives set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution cannot be achieved. The Constitution would fail. We do not think that the importance of education could have been better emphasised than in the above words. The importance of education was emphasised in the 'Neethishatakarn" by Bhartruhari (First Century B.C.) in the following words: "Translation: Education is the special manifestation of man; Education is the treasure which can be preserved without the fear of loss; Education secures material pleasure, happiness and fame; Education is the teacher of the teacher; Education is God incarnate; Education secures honour at the hands of the State, not money. A man without education is equal to animal."
(12) In the present case, the respondent-college has arbitrarily and illegally fixed the upper age limit of 20 years for admission to B.A.(Pass) Course. The petitioner is over age by 4 months and he has been denied admission merely on that ground. The guideline as framed cannot be accepted as there is no such provision in the University regulations to turn away the student who still is of tender age and deprive him the benefit of further education.
(13) For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to grant admission to the petitioner to B.A.(Pass) Course, First year without any further delay as the only ground which has been taken by the respondent is that he could not be granted admission as he would have completed the age of 20 years on 1st October of the admission year. There will be no order as to costs.