Jharkhand High Court
Arvind Kumar Das And Ors. And Lakshmi ... vs Ranchi University, Through Its ... on 19 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: [2005(3)JCR508(JHR)], 2005 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 2428, (2005) 3 JLJR 692 (2005) 3 JCR 508 (JHA), (2005) 3 JCR 508 (JHA)
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In these two writ petitions since common facts and law are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners, in these two writ petitions, have prayed for a direction upon the respondent-University for publication of their result of B.Sc. Engineering 2nd year examination, 2003 which was conducted by the Ranchi University in the month of July, 2004.
3. In WPC No. 645/05 the case of the petitioners is that they are the diploma holders in engineering and were admitted directly in 2nd year of B.Sc. Engineering course in Cambridge Institute of Technology. They were the regular students of the said college. It is stated that the said Institute is an affiliated college of Ranchi University. The University registered the students who had to appear in the said examination including the petitioners. It is stated that the University issued registration slips mentioning the registration numbers of the examinees. The petitioners filled up their forms to appear in B.Sc. 2nd year examination which was to commence from 16th July, 2003. The petitioners were issued admit cards and they appeared in the said examination. The University, thereafter published the result in all the newspapers but the result of the petitioners has been withheld by the University.
4. In WPC No. 659/05 petitioners' case is that they are the Diploma holders in Engineering and are the employees of the Government of Jharkhand and Bihar. They were also admitted in 2nd year B.Sc. Engineering Course in the said Institute. It is stated that the petitioners attended all the classes regularly and, thereafter they were registered with the Ranchi University as per the procedures and they filled up forms for appearing in the said examination. The petitioners were issued admit cards and, thereafter, they appeared in the said examination. It is alleged that the University has illegally withheld the result of these petitioners.
5. The respondents-University in their counter-affidavit have stated that the Cambridge Institute of Technology (C.I.T.) Was recognized by All India Council for Technical Education (in short 'A.I.C.T.E.'). An extension of approval was granted of such course for which the college concerned applies. The AICTE by its letter dated 30.4.2003 and 14.5.2004 granted extension of approval to the CIT in respect of full time course. It does not grant approval in respect of part-time/evening courses to the CIT. As a matter of fact, CIT was never granted permission by the University to run the aforesaid courses on part-time basis. The CIT was also not granted permission by the University to admit such students holding Diploma in Engineering directly into 2nd Year Engineering Course.
6. The case of the respondents-University is that as per the guidelines for admission under lateral entry to Degree engineering programme, the selection of the candidates will be based on State Level Entrance Test which the State Government has to arrange an examination of Diploma Holders for admission in 2nd Year Engineering Course. In violation of the guidelines issued by the AICTE and the resolution of the State Government, the CIT admitted diploma-holders in 2nd Year Engineering Course for the Sessions 2001-05 without taking prior permission from the University. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University made a surprise inspection of the examination center, Doranda College, Doranda where annual examination of academic Sessions 2002-03 was in progress for 2nd Year and certain irregularities were noticed by him. On the basis of the report of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the University by notification constituted a committee and the Committee submitted its enquiry report. The examination board considered the entire matter and took the following resolutions :
(i) 36 Diploma Holders were admitted in 2nd Year of B.Sc. Engineering Course Sessions 2001-05 violating .the principles of admission of A.I.C.T.E. and also not taking the University in confidence.
(ii) All Diploma-holder candidate referred in Point No. 01 excepts 6 who were admitted in 2nd Year B.Sc. Engineering did not attend the classes with the regular students.
(iii) All 36 Diploma-holders, who were admitted in 2nd Year class of B.Sc. Engineering 2nd Year Examination, 2003 (Annul).
7. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the action of the respondent-University in not publishing the result is absolutely illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners were legally taken admission In the 2nd Year Engineering Course and after completing the Sessions, they were registered by the University and admit-cards were issued and pursuant to that, they appeared in the examination along with other 2nd Year students of the institute. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that legally no decision has been taken by the vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University by withholding the result and therefore, the action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and whimsical. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases and (1999) 3 SCC 23.
8. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the University, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent-Institute, namely, AICTE was recognized for Full-time courses and there was no provision for holding part-time classes. Learned Counsel submitted that no State Level Entrance Test was held and in violation of the procedure for admission the Institute has admitted the students and held part-time classes. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner who were not even granted permission by their employers to take admission for the evening classes and such permission was obtained after the Institute took admission of those students. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that merely because the petitioners appeared in the examination, the University is not bound to publish the result.
9. It is the admitted case of respondent Nos. 3 and 4,-the Cambridge Institute of Technology that the Institute is a private non-aided college which runs the Institute out of its own income collected through tuition-fees. As per the norms prescribed by All India Council for Technology Education (AICTE), a student who has acquired degree in Engineering through a minimum of three years of institutional study can be considered to be academically equivalent to a student who has passed first year of the four- year engineering degree programme for which the qualifying examination shall be of 12th level. Lateral entry for diploma holders can be allowed in second year.It is also not disputed that as per the provision of AICTE for the admission of the students holding diploma in Engineering, a State Level Entrance Examination is to be conducted by the State and only the meritorious students shall be admitted. Admittedly no State Level Common Examination for the diploma-holders including the petitioners was held before they were allowed to take admission. Consequently, the Management of the Institute invited applications for admission in the 2nd year and a Common test was held in the College. The students were selected for admission out of the merit-list. The case of the Institute is that all diploma-holders have attended the required number of lecture classes and practical classes as per the prescribed norms of AICTE and syllabus prescribed by the University. On the other hand, the case of the University is that some of the petitioners have not completed the number of lecture classes and practical classes.
10. Be that as it may, the petitioners' names were forwarded to the University for registration and the same were registered by the University without any objection or query from the respondent-Institute. The examination forms were also forwarded to the University for verification and the same were scrutinized by the University. The petitioners were issued admit-cards and they appeared in the examination. The respondent-Institute in their counter-affidavit have stated that the classes for diploma- holders were held by the respondent-Institute in the evening hours, and the duration, number of theory and practical classes have been maintained as per norms prescribed by the AICTE and syllabus of Ranchi University. It is stated that the Institute has changed the timing and taken special classes to meet the requirements and norms of the AICTE. It is has not been disputed by the University that it has affiliated the Institute and allowed it to admit the petitioners and on being satisfied, accepted the examination forms and fees submitted by the petitioners and have also issued admit-cards and allowed them to appear in the University examination.
11. The AICTE granted recognition as well as extension of approval to the Institute for the B.Sc. Engineering Courses. Copies of the approval and the extension of approval have been annexed as Annexures-A and B of the counter-affidavit. From perusal of these annexures, it does not appear that any restriction was put in holding evening classes for those who have been admitted in the 2nd Year Degree Courses. It has been categorically stated by the petitioners as also by the respondent-Institute that the admission of the students including the petitioners were taken in accordance with the rules prescribed by the AICTE.
12. In order to find out the correct position, the Court issued notices to the AICTE, but in spite of service of notice, no counter-affidavit was filed. On 21.6.2005, one Mr. C.D. Singh, learned Standing Counsel was directed to seek instruction, but it is unfortunate that AICTE did not take any interest in the matter and not filed any counter-affidavit. Although as per the guidelines, the lateral admission of the diploma-holders was to be done by holding a State Level Entrance Examination, but the State did not take any interest in holding the State Level Examination. The respondent-Institute after obtaining permission from the University held an internal entrance examination and prepared merit-list and admitted the students including the petitioners in the 2nd Year Engineering Courses. The University after being fully satisfied, accepted the application forms and issued admit-cards to the petitioners and pursuant to that they appeared in the examination. In my opinion, therefore, in absence of any irregularities pointed out by the AICTE, it is not justified for the University to withhold the result of the petitioners and other students who have appeared in the examination. The University is, therefore, bound to publish the result of the petitioners in accordance with law.
13. For the reasons above, these writ petitions are allowed the respondent-University is directed to publish the result, within two weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.