Karnataka High Court
Kum. D.H. Samudhyatha vs Visveswaraiah Technological ... on 3 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(4)KARLJ265
Author: N. Kumar
Bench: N. Kumar
ORDER N. Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner is a graduate in science from Bangalore University. She has secured 49.83% in the optional subjects in the qualifying examination. She applied to the 2nd respondent-college for admission to the Master of Business Administration (MBA) Post-graduate Degree Course of two years duration on 2-8-1999. She was admitted to the 2nd respondent-college. However, she has secured 55% aggregate in qualifying examination. However, the percentage which is relevant for eligibility for admission of MBA Course in the optional subjects is 50%, whereas the petitioner has secured only 49.83%, i.e., shortage of 0.17%.
2. The petitioner was admitted, she was permitted to take first semester examination held during April 2000 and the results were announced in May 2000 and she passed through in first class. Thereafter, she completed the second semester course also. When the college forwarded her admission to the University, the first respondent-University did not approve her admission on the ground that she does not possess eligibility criteria. At that juncture, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to admit her to the MBA course and allow her to take second semester examination.
3. This Court while entertaining this writ petition passed an interim order on 24-8-2000 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to take second semester examination commencing from 26-8-2000. It is also made clear that this permission is purely temporary and will not confer any special right on the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to take the examination. However, the results of the said examination are yet to be announced. Thereafter, she has been permitted to attend third semester course and permitted to take examination and she has secured 856 marks out of 1200 marks. Hence she has been declared to be pass in first class distinction. In the fourth semester, which is the last semester, she has got 826 marks out of 1200 marks and she has been declared to be passed in first class distinction. Under these circumstances, as the petitioner has completed the course with distinction, she wants her admission be approved, her results in second semester be declared and she is given a certificate.
4. The first respondent-University has filed detailed statement of objections. They contended, the admission made by the 2nd respondent-college was provisional, because the petitioner had not produced eligibility certificate from the respondent-University, which is a must for confirmation of provisional admission in the said college. She has also not submitted her degree marks card or certificate. Therefore, they have not approved her admission to the University. They have referred to the correspondence made between the college and the University, where repeated request has been made by the University calling upon the college to send pass certificate of the petitioner, which they did not comply with.
5. Thereafter, the University was constrained to approach the Registrar (Evaluation), Bangalore University, directly to secure the marks card of the petitioner and thereafter they found that the petitioner has secured only 51.8% in aggregate from first, second and third years and 49.83% was the marks awarded to her in the final year degree in optional subjects and therefore the 2nd respondent was informed that the petitioner is ineligible for MBA course and that her admission should be cancelled. It is also stated that it is the 2nd respondent who permitted the petitioner at their own risk to admit her to the college without taking prior approval from the Registrar (Evaluation). Similarly, the 2nd respondent has allowed the petitioner to take first semester examination of MBA held during the month of April 2000 and also second semester examination. They also contended that University has not rounded of the percentage. Therefore, they contend, as the petitioner is not eligible to be admitted to the MBA course they cannot be compelled to announce her results and give her all the consequential benefits.
6. It is unfortunate that the 2nd respondent-college has not filed any statement of objections to the writ petition.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri N.K. Ramesh, contends it is an admitted fact that the petitioner does not have 50% marks in the optional subjects to be eligible to the admission to the MBA course. However, she has been admitted to the College, she has completed two years course and the marks card discloses in three semesters, in which the results have been announced, she has passed the examination in first class and in particular the 3rd semester with distinction. The shortage of percentage of marks is hardly 0.17 per cent. She has an average of three years 51.81%, even in optional subjects. Whereas in final year she has secured 55% in. aggregate. Under these circumstances, taking into consideration that the petitioner has not only completed the course, but she has secured the first class, this Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction to condone the non-fulfiling of eligibility criteria and grant the relief sought for.
8. In support of his contentions the learned Counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and Anr.,
9. Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for the first respondent-University submits when the petitioner has not secured 50% minimum marks prescribed for admission to MBA course her admission to the course cannot be approved by the University. The University is not at fault. The college has not cared to verify at any time the marks obtained by the petitioner. After getting necessary information directly from the University and satisfying themselves that she has no eligibility, they have promptly informed the 2nd respondent-college to the effect that her admission cannot be approved and that she should be relieved from the course. Therefore, they submitted that University cannot approve the admission of the petitioner.
10. The learned Counsel for the first respondent-University has relied upon the judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and Anr., and on the judgment in the case of P. Siva Naga Raju v. Bangalore University and Anr., 2000(1.) Kar. L.J. Sh. N. 8 and contends that even though the petitioner has completed the course by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court in academic matters when the minimum eligibility criteria is not satisfied by the petitioner, it not proper for this Court to issue directions to approve such admissions and therefore they contend that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Sri Nagamohan Das, the learned Counsel appearing for second respondent-college submits that the petitioner has not produced marks card, she promised to produce necessary certificate, on her representation, in good faith the college gave admission permitting her to prosecute her studies, declaring her result. But when the University declined to approve the admission of the petitioner on the ground that non-fulfilling of minimum eligibility criteria, the college was helpless and therefore the action of the college cannot be found fault with.
12. From the aforesaid facts and rival contentions it becomes clear that 50% marks in the optional subjects in the qualifying examination is eligibility criteria prescribed for admission to the MBA course. The petitioner has secured 49.83%, shortage by 0.17%. In other words, the petitioner does not possess the eligibility criteria for being admitted to the said MBA course.
13. The aforesaid facts reveal that she was permitted to take first year examination and her results were announced showing that she has passed in first class. Thereafter, she has continued the second semester course. Only at the time of examination of the second semester, the University appears to have scrutinised the marks card and noticed that the petitioner does not possess eligibility. Then college was informed that her admission is not approved. Under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition and this Court passed an interim order permitting her to take examination. She had taken examination. No efforts were made either by the University or by the college to have the pending writ petition disposed of. On the contrary, the petitioner was allowed to continue the third and fourth semesters. She was allowed to take examination and her marks card discloses that she has passed the 3 and 4 semester course in first class distinction. Thus, during the pendency of this proceeding the petitioner has completed the course and she has been successful in the third semester by obtaining first class.
14. At the time of admissions it is the duty of the college which is fully aware of the eligibility criteria prescribed for admission in a particular course, to verify whether the candidate, who is seeking admission satisfies the said criteria. The regulations of Visveswaraiah Technical University categorically provides at 3.7 that 'the graduates other than the graduates of VTU shall have to obtain eligibility certificate from the VTU to seek MBA admissions in any of the colleges affiliated to VTU'. Therefore, it is mandatory on the part of the college to have insisted upon either production of the marks card showing the percentage of marks the said candidate has acquired or as required under regulations any eligibility certificate from the first respondent-University as a condition precedent for admitting the student to the college. If at the stage of admission, if the college has insisted upon these requirements and if the students did not fulfill them, the question of admitting such student to the college does not arise.
15. Our experience shows, the colleges are very eager to admit students, who do not possess eligibility criteria either on the so-called promises made by them or by taking undertaking in writing to justify their illegal acts and absolve themselves from any liability if any when those admissions were challenged before this Court. After admitting those ineligible students when those admissions are not approved by the University, they either insist or force the students to approach the Court for regularisation of those illegal admissions just prior to the commencement of the examination when such students are prevented from taking examination.
16. It is also a practice that where the students approach the Court prior to commencement of the examinations and the Court on sympathetic and humanitarian considerations pass interim orders, which enables these students to take examination and further interim orders are passed to announce such results. Thereafter, the parties forget about the writ petition and because of the large pendency of the cases, the writ petitions are not posted immediately before the Court. In the result, these students by virtue of the interim order complete the course and at the time of final disposal of the case it is submitted that the student has completed the course, spent enormous money on course, student is not at fault and therefore, the Court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to do justice to these innocent and helpless students. Swayed by these submissions looking into the future of the students, these illegal admissions are regularised by the Court. Every year such illegal admissions are made followed by writ petitions to this Court seeking interim orders and this process goes on virtually paralysing the entire scheme of admission to these professional courses. It has reached such a dangerous proportion, as the same is cited as a precedent. Though University is justified in not approving these admissions, they tend to take shelter under the orders passed by this Court to regularise such illegal admissions and then forget their responsibility and no follow up action is taken against such erring colleges, who knowingly well on the point deliberately every year make admissions contrary to the law thus putting the students' future in jeopardy.
17. It is high time that if such illegal admissions are regularised by the University, a duty is cast upon the University to take action against those erring colleges by initiating proceedings for withdrawal of affiliation given to such colleges. The Court records and the stand taken by rival parties constitute sufficient material for the University to take suo motu action in this regard.
18. Section 43 of the Visveswaraiah Technical University Act, 1994, categorically provides that 'the rights conferred on a college as a constituent college of the University may be withdrawn in whole or in part or modified if the college has failed to comply with provisions made in this behalf or the college has failed to observe any of the conditions of affiliation or the college is conducted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of education'. In spite of pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court regarding need to follow these rules and regulations strictly in the matter of admission to the professional colleges, to which most of the colleges are parties with their eyes wide open, knowing well that the students would not satisfy the eligibility criteria are admitted by these colleges in flagrant violation of law. That should constitute sufficient cause for the University to initiate appropriate proceedings against the erring colleges. The University should not fail in its duty and enforce the laws.
19. In the instant case, the college has admitted the petitioner who does not satisfy the eligibility criteria and by an interim order passed by this Court, she has been permitted to continue the course and she has successfully completed the course with distinction. Now the question is, though she does not possess the eligibility criteria, is it proper for this Court to direct the University to approve the admission and give her all consequential benefits though she does not satisfy the legal requirements.
20. In Guru Nanak Dev University's case, supra, the Supreme Court while dealing similar situation has held as under:
"We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by itself taking over their functions".
21. In the aforesaid case the student who had completed M.B.B.S. was admitted to internship, a 12 month training course and it was argued that he has completed the said 12 month course under the cover of an interim order passed by the Court, his admission should be approved. It is in this context, it has been held that such a thing is not possible. The result was that he should first complete his MBBS course and then undergo internship and the student was not sent out of the course.
22. In P. Siva Naga Raju's case referred to supra, this Court has declined to grant an interim order permitting an ineligible candidate to continue studies on the ground that the candidate does not possess minimum marks required for admission.
23. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case, supra, the Supreme Court declared that the student was not eligible for admission and they had no legitimate claim to the course. In that context, it has been stated as under:
"But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the Engineering Colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants. It is quite possible that the appellant did not know that neither the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan nor the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognised as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the Engineering Colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals to these Engineering Colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these Engineering Colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges in which they were granted admission. But we do feel that against the erring Engineering Colleges the Karnataka University should take appropriate action because the managements of these Engineering Colleges have not only admitted students ineligible for admission but thereby deprived an equal number of eligible students from getting admission to the Engineering Degree Course. We also endorse the direction given by the learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment with a view to preventing admission of ineligible students".
24. Applying the aforesaid law to the instant case, the petitioner has obtained degree in science by obtaining 55% marks in the aggregate. She was admitted to the college, she was permitted to take first semester course which she has cleared in first class and she continued the second semester course and only at the time of examination the trouble started to her. By an interim order passed by this Court, she was permitted to take the second semester examination. Subsequently, she was permitted to complete the course by continuing third and fourth semesters. She was also permitted to take the examinations and she has completed those two semesters in flying colours by obtaining first class with distinction.
25. The fault of admitting the petitioner to the college clearly lies with the 2nd respondent-college, because the Principal of the College must have known that the petitioner was not eligible for admission and yet obviously for the sake of capitation fee, the admission is granted to her. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned she has secured 51.8% marks in the aggregate in the optional subjects and it is quite possible that the petitioner did not know what exactly is the legal requirement. Under these circumstances, I do not see any reason why the petitioner should suffer for the sins of the management of the 2nd respondent-college, especially, when the petitioner has secured first class throughout in the professional course. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I deem it is just and proper that the University to approve her admission and give her all consequential benefits. This order shall not act as a precedent for any other student to seek for regularisation of their admission and for announcement of their results. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER Rule is made absolute.
The first respondent-University is directed to approve the admission of the petitioner and accord her all consequential benefits which flow from such admission including announcing the results of second semester course, issue marks card and the degree certificate.
In order to avoid the repetition of such mistakes in the coming years a legal obligation is cast upon the University to take appropriate action against the 2nd respondent-college and such other erring colleges which comes under its jurisdiction, so that in future such illegal admissions are not made and students are not misled and shut the doors of this Court for regularisation of illegal admissions. If the University is really sincere in maintaining standards and to avoid such inconveniences to students, they should show their intention by prompt action.
Parties to bear their own costs.