Allahabad High Court
Bal Govind Joshi vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 February, 2013
Bench: Sushil Harkauli, Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?'AFR' Court No. - 33 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 442 of 2011 Petitioner :- Bal Govind Joshi Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- R.K. Gupta,K.K. Srivastava,K.P. Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag Khanna And Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 483 of 2006 Petitioner :- Km. Meenu Verma Respondent :- Chaudhary Charan Singh University Thru' Its Registrar & Anr. Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Mithal,Madan Mohan Respondent Counsel :- Anurag Khanna And Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 389 of 2009 Petitioner :- Chaudhary Charan Singh University And Another Respondent :- Ravi Dutta Sharma And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Anurag Khanna Respondent Counsel :- R.K. Ojha Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli,J.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
1. These three special appeals raise common questions of fact and law, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, are being decided together by a common judgment.
2. The short question involved in these three special appeals is whether Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the University) was legally justified in denying the students admitted to its graduation course, after having successfully passed Intermediate Examination conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board), from pursuing the graduation course conducted by the University on the ground that "Adhikari Pariksha" certificate obtained by such students from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan (Mathura) (hereinafter referred to as Gurukul) was not recognized by the University as equivalent to the High School Examination pass certificate.
3. Special Appeal No.442 of 2011 arises out of Writ Petition No. 7376 of 2011. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 7376 of 2011 had passed "Adhikari Pariksha" in the year 2004 and was awarded certificate to that effect by Gurukul. Thereafter, the said petitioner passed his Intermediate Examination, conducted by the Board, in the year 2009 and, on its basis, took admission in the University in the year 2009 for the course of Bachelor of Arts. The said petitioner appeared in the B.A. Ist year examination in the year 2010 but his result was not declared. Accordingly, he filed the writ petition with a prayer that his result be declared by the University and that he may be permitted to appear in B.A.-IInd year examination conducted by the University dependent on the outcome of the result.
4. Special Appeal No.483 of 2006 arises out of Writ Petition No. 26000 of 2006. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 26000 of 2006 passed her "Adhikari Pariksha" in the year 2003 from Gurukul. Thereafter, she passed Intermediate Examination in the year 2005, conducted by the Board. On the strength of having passed her Intermediate Examination she took admission in the University to the course of Bachelor of Arts but, in spite of having filled up the examination form, she was denied Admit Card, accordingly, she approached this Court with a prayer that she may be issued an Admit Card to appear in the B.A. Ist year examination.
5. Special Appeal No.389 of 2009 arises out of Writ Petition No. 9676 of 2008. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 9676 of 2008 passed his "Adhikari Pariksha" in the year 2004 from Gurukul. Thereafter, he passed Intermediate Examination in the year 2006, conducted by the Board. On the strength of having passed his Intermediate Examination he took admission in the University for the course of Bachelor of Arts. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for his B.A.-Ist year examination the result of which was not declared, accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court.
6. In all these three writ petitions, the stand taken by the University is to the effect that Gurukul has been declared a fake University by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as UGC); that under section 45(3) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the University has the power, for the purpose of admission to a course of study conducted by it for a degree, to recognize any examination conducted by any other authority as equivalent to the Intermediate Examination; and as the University has taken a decision (vide Equivalence Committee meeting dated 06.04.2005) not to recognize any examination conducted by Gurukul, for the purpose of admission to a course of study conducted by the University, the writ petitioners, who all held certificate of "Adhikari Pariksha" from Gurukul, were not eligible for admission to the B.A. degree course conducted by the University.
7. Writ Petition No.7376 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 26000 of 2006 were dismissed by separate judgments rendered by learned single judges of this Court. Whereas writ petition No. 9676 of 2008 was allowed, by a separate judgment rendered by a learned single judge of this Court, with direction that the result of the petitioner be declared by the University and he may be permitted to pursue further study, if declared pass. Accordingly, three separate special appeals have been filed. Special Appeal Nos.442 of 2011 and 483 of 2006 have been filed by the respective students whereas Special Appeal No.389 of 2009 has been filed by the University.
8. We have heard learned counsel representing the student writ petitioners; Sri Anurag Khanna representing the University; and the learned standing counsel representing the state-respondents including the Board.
9. In the counter affidavit dated 19.8.2011 sworn by Sanjay Kumar Rastogi, Deputy Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, UP, in short Board, filed in Special Appeal No.442 of 2011, in paragraph no.5, it is stated that under Regulation 2(30) of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921, "Adhikari Pariksha" from Gurukul was recognized by the Board as equivalent to High School Examination for the purpose of seeking admission in Class 11th i.e. Intermediate course, conducted by the Board, provided it has been passed in one year duration, not in parts, with English as one of the subjects. It has also been stated that vide Govt. Order dated 10th July, 2008, issued by the State Govt., the equivalence extended to said Adhikari Pariksha with High School examination was withdrawn from the date of issuance of said Govt. Order. It has also been stated therein that the students who had passed their Adhikari Pariksha prior to issuance of the Govt. Order dated 10th July, 2008 are to be treated as equivalent to having passed the High School Examination and as such eligible to get admission in Class 11th.
10. It is undisputed that all the writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions had obtained "Adhikari Pariksha" prior to the year 2008. It is also undisputed that all the three writ petitioners, on the basis of having passed Adhikari Pariksha, took admission to the Intermediate course conducted by the Board and have passed the Intermediate Examinations and that, having passed the Intermediate Examinations, they took admission in the University for B.A. Course.
11. The correctness of the stand taken by the University that as it had not given equivalence to "Adhikari Pariksha" with High School, therefore, the writ petitioners had no right of admission to the University, requires to be examined. For the said purpose it would be useful to examine the provisions of Section 45 of the UP State Universities Act, 1973, which provides as follows:
"S. 45. Admission of Students.--- (1) No student shall be eligible for admission to the course of study for a degree unless--
(a) he has passed---
i.the Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, or of any University or Board incorporated by any law for the time being in force; or ii.any examination, or any degree conferred by any other University, being an examination or degree recognized by the University as equivalent to the Intermediate Examination or to a degree of the University; and
(b) he possesses such further qualifications, if any, as may be specified in the Ordinances:
Provided that the University may prescribe by Ordinances any lower qualification for admission to a degree in Fine Arts.
(2) The conditions under which students may be admitted to the diploma courses of the University shall be prescribed by the Ordinances.
(3) The University shall have the power to recognize (for the purposes of admission to a course of study for a degree), as equivalent to its own degree conferred by any other University or, as equivalent to the Intermediate Examination of any Indian University any examination conducted by any other authority.
(4) Any student whose work or conduct is unsatisfactory may be removed from the University or an institute or a constituent college or an affiliated or associated college in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinances."
12. Relying on the provisions of Section 45(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. State Universities Act, the learned counsel for the student-petitioners submitted that as all the writ petitioners had passed the intermediate examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., they were eligible for admission. It has also been submitted that even if Gurukul was declared a fake University by the UGC, such declaration would only undermine its authority to confer degrees in respect of higher education but would not affect its authority to confer pass certificates with respect to 10th class level examinations. Further, as the Board had, admittedly, recognized Adhikari Pariksha as a qualifying examination for admission to Intermediate level course conducted by the Board, it was not open for the University to deny admission to the writ petitioners even though they held the minimum eligibility prescribed by Section 45(1)(a)(i) of the UP State Universities Act, 1973. In support of the above contention reliance has been placed on a single judge decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 68714 of 2011 (Akanksha Gautam v. State of U.P. & Ors. connected with Writ Petition Nos. 1640 of 2012 and 3287 of 2012), rendered on 30.03.2012, wherein this issue was examined in great detail.
13. In the case of Akanksha Gautam (supra), a Single Judge of this Court, after examining the provisions of the University Grants Commissions Act, 1956 and UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 including the Regulations framed thereunder, took the view that since up to the year 2008, "Adhikari Pariksha" was recognized by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School Examination for the purpose of admission to the intermediate course and as the candidates had obtained admission to the intermediate course on the strength of said "Adhikari Pariksha", which was recognized by the Board up to the year 2008, and had thereafter passed the intermediate examination, it would not be legally justified to deny the benefit of Intermediate Pass certificate to such candidates merely on the ground that Gurukul was not a University under the UGC Act, 1956, particularly when grant of equivalence to "Adhikari Pariksha" with High School examination was not dependent on the status of "Gurukul" as a University under the UGC Act.
14. Coming to the present appeals, a perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in Writ Petition No.7376 of 2011 reveals that the learned judge took the view that the University being an autonomous body is governed by its own statutes and ordinances and as the Equivalence Committee has taken a conscious decision, on 18.11.2003, to grant recognition to only three courses of Gurukul, which does not include "Adhikari Pariksha", therefore, the writ petitioners cannot be granted relief. A reading of the first paragraph of the said impugned judgment gives us an impression that the learned single judge proceeded to decide the writ petition under the impression that the writ petitioner had secured admission on the strength of having passed "Adhikari Pariksha". It further transpires that the learned single judge was under the impression that the Board by its letter dated 25th August 2008 had accorded "Adhikari Pariksha" equivalence with Intermediate (Class XII), therefore, towards the end of the judgment, after noticing that the University accorded equivalence to "Pandit" examination, conducted by Gurukul, with Intermediate (Class XII), and not to "Adhikari Pariksha", it was observed that clarifications issued by the Board were not binding on the University, as the Board has no control over the University. Likewise, writ petition No.26000 of 2006 was dismissed albeit without much reasons. It thus transpires that the learned single judge failed to notice that the writ petitioners had taken admission in the University not on the strength of having passed "Adhikari Pariksha" but on passing Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board. The Board had, admittedly, up to the year 2008, recognized "Adhikari Pariksha" as equivalent to High School for the purpose of taking admission in Class XI to pursue Intermediate course conducted by the Board. Accordingly, we find that the learned single judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petitions on the erroneous assumption that the petitioners had gained admission to the B.A. Course conducted by the University on the strength of having passed "Adhikari Pariksha", when, in fact, the petitioners were provided admission as they held intermediate pass certificates, which made them eligible for admission by virtue of Section 45(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
15. On the contrary, writ petition No. 9676 of 2008 was allowed thereby holding that as the petitioner had passed the intermediate examination which is the basic qualification, under Section 45 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, to be eligible for admission in the degree course, he could not be denied admission. In the judgment of writ petition No. 9676 of 2008 it was also observed that UGC was within its domain in refusing to recognize the degrees awarded by Gurukul with respect to higher education, but the decision of the UP Board of High School and Intermediate Education in recognizing "Adhikari Pariksha" as equivalent to High School, for the purpose of enabling such students to undertake intermediate education, cannot be nullified as the Board itself has not been declared a fake Board. Accordingly, it was held that the University was not justified in denying the petitioner pursue his graduation course.
16. Upon consideration of the rival submissions as also on perusal of record, we find that it is the admitted case of the Board that up to the year 2008 it had accorded equivalence to "Adhikari Pariksha", conducted by Gurukul, with High School examination, conducted by the Board, for eligibility to undertake Intermediate Education course conducted by the Board. We also find that each of the three writ petitioners had passed their Adhikari Pariksha prior to the year 2008 and thereafter they passed their intermediate examinations conducted by the Board. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Intermediate Examination pass certificate held by the petitioners was either canceled or challenged by the Board. In such a scenario, having secured the minimum eligibility criterion for admission to the graduation course conducted by the University, as prescribed by Section 45(1)(a)(i) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the University was not within its authority to either cancel the admission of the petitioners or to deprive them from further pursuing their graduation course. Whether "Adhikari Pariksha" from Gurukul qualified a person to undertake Intermediate course was within the domain of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board. It is no doubt within the domain of the University to grant equivalence to an examination with intermediate examination under section 45 (1) (a) (ii) and section 45(3) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. But, in view of Section 45 (1) (a) (i) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, it is not in the domain of the University to discard an Intermediate Examination Pass Certificate held by a candidate, duly issued by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, particularly when it has been demonstrated that the concerned student sought admission to the Intermediate course after having passed an examination duly recognized by the Board, as equivalent to High School. Any other interpretation would render Section 45(1) (a)(i) of the U.P. State Universities Act otiose. Admission to a graduation course, conducted by a University, is not provided on the strength of having passed High School Examination. In such circumstances, even if the University did not grant equivalence to Adhikari Pariksha with High School it would not make any difference to the eligibility of the writ petitioners to seek admission in the graduation course offered by the University, as their eligibility was determined by having passed Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board. We are, therefore, of the view that the University was not legally justified in denying the writ petitioners pursue their degree course on the strength of having passed Intermediate Examination from the U.P. Board, after passing "Adhikari Pariksha".
17. At this stage, it may be brought on record that the learned counsel for the University cited before us a division bench decision of this court rendered in Special Appeal No.1990 of 2011 (Indrawati Devi V. State of UP & others). We are not persuaded to follow the said decision inasmuch as it has been rendered without considering the import of section 45 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, which is applicable to the University.
18. Thus, we allow the Special Appeal Nos. 442 of 2011 and 483 of 2006 and set aside the judgment and order dated 17.02.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 7376 of 2011 and the judgment and order dated 09.05.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26000 of 2006. The Writ Petition Nos.7376 of 2011 and 26000 of 2006 are hereby allowed with direction to the University to allow the writ petitioners to pursue their B.A. Course and in case they have already appeared for the examination their results shall be declared forthwith, if not already declared. The Special Appeal No.389 of 2009 is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.2.2013 Sunil Kr Tiwari (Manoj Misra, J.) (Sushil Harkauli,J.)