Bombay High Court
Miss Prabha Kalyandeo Verma vs The Nagpur University And Others on 7 July, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR1993BOM147, 1993(1)BOMCR81, (1992)94BOMLR519, 1992(2)MHLJ1345, AIR 1993 BOMBAY 147, (1992) MAH LJ 1345, (1993) 2 SCT 637, (1993) 1 SERVLR 726, (1993) 1 BOM CR 81
ORDER Saldanha, J.
1. The petitioner, a young talented lady student, assails the action of the Nagpur University in having denied her admission to the One Year Master of Library and Information Science Course for 1991-92 session. According! to the Prospectus, the eligibility criteria is as follows :--
"Diploma/Degree in Library (and Information) Science Course of the Nagpur University or any other recognised Indian University."
Admittedly, the petitioner possessed a B.Sc. degree from Nagpur University having secured 59.21% marks. She secured degree of Bachelor of Library and Information Science from the Nagpur. University in the first attempt and stood 3rd in the order of merit. The petitioner applied for admission to the Master's course and was denied admission by the University as there were only four seats available in the open merit category. The first three students who were admitted had obtained 68.63% and 67.26% and 67.15% marks respectively. The students at serial Nos. 4 and 5 had secured 67.15% and 67.10% marks respectively after weightage of 2 and 3 marks respectively.
2. We need to record that Mrs. Shinde learned counsel representing the University has essentialiy contended that there are no mala fides involved in this case and that the action was with the best of intention. That the University acted in good faith cannot at all be in question. As far as the students at serial Nos. 4 and 5 were concerned, the University had given them the weightage of 2 and 3 marks respectively as they had the additional qualifications of M.Sc. Second Class and M.Sc. First Class respectively. The petitioner was not granted any weightage as she did not possess such a Post Graduate qualification. The petitioner has contended that the rules do not make provision for any such weightage to be given in the case of any Post Graduate qualification and consequently but for such additions, she ought to have been rightly placed at serial No. 4, and that she had been wrongfully denied admission to the course in question. The University authorities have filed their reply and annexed a number of documents in support of their contentions.
3. The University has pointed out that the Government of India, Ministry of Education has prescribed certain qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian/ College Librarian and that the minimum qualifications required are a good academic record with at least a high second class Master's degree in the subject other than Library Science. It is pointed out that the Government of Maharashtra has also ap proved of these job requirements. The Admission Committee took into account the fact that the Master's degree should un doubtedly lead to the aforesaid posts in the specialised field of Library Science. It was decided as long back as 2-10-84 to give the following weightage for Post Graduate Degrees amongst the candidates from all categories :
Division Weightage Master Degree First 3 Second 2 Third 1 The Admission Committee has been following this criteria since the year 1984. This date is significant as shall be pointed out by us presently. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the authorities that in assessing merit, the possession of an additional qualification such as a Post-Graduate degree in an other subject is certainly relevant and justified, as it is an additional merit criterian. Furthermore, it has been argued that the intention behind doing this was in order to ensure that the few students who are fortunate enough to secure admission to this highly specialised course do not find themselves wanting in qualifications when they apply for employment and, therefore, the University decided to fall in line with this formula of granting weightage in the case of postgraduate degrees. We do not dispute the wisdom or the good intention behind this reasoning but the complication that has arisen in the present case is that the petitioner points out, and with some justification to our mind, that this system of weightage does not find place in the admission rules nor is there even a reference to it and furthermore, that the Admission Committee did not have the power to apply standards other than those prescribed in the rules.
4. The issue that has arisen for decision before us is: Whether it was permissible for the University authorities to grant weightage for the additional post-graduate qualification without having indicated this in the rules and whether the Admission Committee was within its right in exercising such powers while finalising the admissions; (b) Whether it is essential that all eligibility criteria relating to the mode adopted for purposes of granting admissions are required to be set out fairly in the rules so that the candidates have notice of them and whether at all any variations or additions to this criteria if applied can pass the test of legal scrutiny.
5. Mr. Pendharkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has in the first instance attacked the very concept relating to the grant of weightage for the possession of post-graduate degree in some other subjects. It is his submission that for a specialised course of the present type, the only relevant consideration for assessment of merit would be the marks secured at the degree level in this very course. He submits that there is no rational nexus whatsoever between library science and the possession of a post graduate degree "in any other subject". According to him, weightage would be permissible if it leads to the field itself or an allied one or is directly connected with and supplementary to other present course of study and to this extent the entire basis of justification for weightage is far-fetched and irrelevant. He further contends that the requirement for employment and the prescribed eligibility criteria for the post as prescribed by the Government cannot be used as grounds to obtain admission because it would be open to the candidates to secure the additional postgraduate qualification even after doing this course. Mr. Pendharkar has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Orissa High Court , in the case of Salil v. State of Orissa. In that case the question was about the admission to Post-Graduate Medical Courses and the Court struck down the weightage for rural service or having reached the target of family planning programme on the ground that it was arbitrary and unreasonable. The ratio in that case cannot be faulted but it is distinguishable from the present one for the simple reason that the Court took into account the factors on which weightage was being awarded and found that they were so remote and so distantly connected from the course of study that it was both arbitrary and unreasonable to link then) up as being additional qualifications for the purposes of admission. We cannot accept Mr. Pendharkar's criticism because in the instant case the master's degree in library science presupposes a field of literary and academic excellence of a high order, and the possession of an allied masters degree in any other subject would certainly be an added asset in matters of assessing the merit of the student in relation to others. It is obvious that even the Government for good reason, is insisting upon such an additional qualification, principally because a masters degree in this highly specialised field would not throw up sufficiently broad-based persons who are required in a library as of necessity to deal with virtually a host of subjects. Whether or not such an additional qualification is to be preferred while admitting students for this course is a matter within the province of the University and similarly a question as to whether weightage should be awarded or not is again something which is to be decided upon by the academic experts. Suffice it to say that the requirement is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
6. Mr. Pendharkar placed reliance on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ashwinder kaur v. State of Punjab. The learned single Judge in that case held that the overriding preferential provision in favour of the Masters degree in arts or science while considering admission to the Master's Degree in the Library and Information Science course was illegal in so far as through such a process, those who had acquired higher proficiency in terms of marks obtained in the relevant professional course of degree in library Science are distorted and the concerned students are deprived of their admissions. We are not in agreement with this reasoning and prefer to leave the matter to the careful consideration of the University Authorities who arc free to decide in their considered judgment whether such weightage ought to be given or not and to make such a provision in the rules provided it can be supported by a very valid and cogent considerations. To this extent we are in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the university by Mrs. Shinde who has very ably amplified the need for a very correct approach if high standards are to be expected at these levels.
7. Mr. Pendharkar also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Gupta. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a regulation which prescribed a 5% weightage for institutional students. Mr. Pendharkar drew our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in that judgment in support of his contention that there can be no substitution for merit which alone is to be the criteria for admissions. He further referred a number of decisions of the Courts in similar cases wherein it has been conclusively held that in matters of high education, there can be no dilution whatsoever of the principle that merit is the sole and only guiding factor. This is a well settled principle and its wisdom cannot be questioned but we are here concerned with the manner in which the merit criterion is required to be assessed.
8. The principal ground of challenge in this petition stems around the charge that the petitioner had no notice whatsoever of the fact that the Admission Committee was applying certain criteria which were not made known to the applicant through the rules and prospectus. Specifically, it is alleged that the prospectus at para 4 mentions weightage of marks only for sportsman and deduction of 1% marks from the total aggregate marks for gap or attempts in passing the provisions examinations. At no stage were the applicants informed of the fact that weightage would be accorded for the possession of an additional post-graduate degree and that too at a graded scale of 1, 2 and 3 marks respectively. That the applicant had no knowledge of this is undisputed and that the petitioner came to be prejudicially affected thereby is also demonstrated from the fact that ultimately she lost her admission only because of this, Smt. Shinde on behalf of the University has contended that the University Authorities are invested with the power of deciding the criteria for admission and that by a resolution of the Executive Council, the powers were delegated to the Admission Committee and that consequently, that Committee, was within its right to adopt a certain formula while selecting the candidates.
9. This aspect of the matter is of crucial importance because the competition at higher levels being extremely acute, even a difference of 0.1% in the aggregate would make a difference between admission or rejection. In this view of the matter there can be no two opinions about the fact that the authorities of an Institution or University would be bound and totally circumscribed by what is indicated in the rules/prospectus and that it would be impermissible for them to apply any rule or formula other than what has been made known to the applicant. The reason for this is self evident in so far as it is not the question of whether the modes adopted pass the test of scrutiny or justification but more importantly of the fact that it would be conferring an arbitrary power on the authority or the institution to bend the rules or for that matter to ignore or alter some part of them through a clever process and if what is done can be justified, it would run the full circle and came back to a position, whereby unbridled powers are vested in the concerned authorities of which the applicants have no notice. This would immediately open the action to a challenge on the ground of mala fides for the lurking suspicion would always arise that the deviation was made in order to favour a particular candidate. Not only is this improper but it would be highly unreasonable for it is well settled law that all public authorities are expected and required to act reasonably and fairly. Any such course of action would pass neither of the two tests. It is on this ground that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in so far as she had no knowledge of the fact that such weightage was being accorded by the authorities and had no notice of the same.
10. In an attempt to justify the action on the part of the Admission Committee, Mrs. Shinde has taken us through several documents including a resolution of the Executive Council of the University. She has pointed out to us that under the Nagpur University Act, the power to vary the Rules does vest in the Executive Council. This position, is not disputed. This power can also be delegated to other authorities of the University and.it is the contention of Mrs. Shinde that this power was delegated to the Admission Committee. We have seen the concerned resolution and we are unable to accept this submission because the resolution only indicated that the Admission Committee was to review the rules and criteria for the admissions and to report back to the Executive Council. The Admission Committee was, therefore, not vested with the power of unilaterally changing the rules. Even if that power was vested in the Committee in the view that has been indicated by us it would have been absolutely necessary to publish the variation in the rules before implementing it. Not having done so, the procedure followed is liable to be struck down.
11. We must refer in this context to the provisions of Section 24(xli), which runs as under :--
"delegate, subject to the approval of the Chancellor, any of the powers (except the power to make Ordinances) to the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar or the Finance Officer, or such other officer or authority of the University or a committee appointed by it, as it thinks fit."
It is a requirement of the Act that if the powers are so delegated that they should be done with the sanction of the Chancellor. Such a procedure has not been followed and, therefore, the plea that powers of the Executive Committee had vested in the Admission Committee must necessarily fail.
12. For the reasons indicated by us in this judgment, the petition succeeds. The petitioner who was wrongly denied admission to the post-graduate course in the academic year 1991-92 will have to be admitted to that course in the current year. We direct the Nagpur University to admit the petitioner to the said course for the academic year 1992-93. Since this action should not act prejudicially to the students who would be normally entitled to admission in the current academic year, it is further necessary to direct that the petitioner's admission should not interfere with those admissions for the current year, and that she should be admitted by creation of a supernumerary seat. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the circumstances, of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Petition allowed.