Karnataka High Court
B.S. Lingaraju vs The Registrar, University Of ... on 3 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1997KANT12, ILR1996KAR1478, 1996(3)KARLJ143, AIR 1997 KARNATAKA 12, (1996) ILR (KANT) 1478 (1996) 3 KANT LJ 143, (1996) 3 KANT LJ 143
ORDER
1. This petition once again raises the question as to the correct interpretation of the term 'Agriculturist' or 'Childern of Agriculturists as defined in Section 7 of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963. Section 5(2) of the Act reads as follows :
"5 (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1) the State Government may direct that the University shall reserve in Colleges seats for women, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, Agriculturists or the Children of Agriculturists who possess the minimum qualifications prescribed in this behalf and who pass such practical tests in Agriculture as the State Government may by order specify, Children and wards of freedom fighters, defence personnel and Ex-servicemen and such socially and educationally backward class of citizens as may be declared by the State Government in this behalf and where such direction has been given, the University shall make reservation accordingly.
Explanation : For the purpose of this subsection (1) 'Agriculturiests' means a person, who as owner of tenant holds lands and whose main source of income is from personal cultivation of the land and includes any person whose principal means of livelihood is from manual labour on agricultural lands.
(2) 'Freedom fighter' means a person of the category declared by the State Government from time to time as such."
2. The petitioner has applied to the University for admission to the B. V. Sc., Course and he claimed additional weightage of 10 marks on the ground that he was the son of an agriculturist. In support of his contention, he has produced an affidavit dated 28-7-1990 indicating the annual income of Rs. 28,500/- from agricultural cultivation by the joint family. The affidavit also indicated that the petitioner's father, who is a Government Servant was drawing an annual salary of Rs. 25,237/-. The other supportive evidence was a Certificate from the Tahsildar certifying that the petitioner's family are agriculturists and that he is the son of an agriculturist. The University examined the material placed before it and after a careful consideration which included setting up of a Special Committed recorded a finding that the petitioner was disqualified from claiming the weightage on the ground that he was the son of an agriculturist and that therefore, the admission itself could not be approved. Since this had been done on the basis of his inclusion in the special category, the reasoning behind this order was that the definition prescribes that the main source of income must be from agricultural cultivation, that the amount of Rs. 28,500/ - which was declared to be agricultural income was not the individual income of the petitioner's father as it was the aggregate income of the joint family, but more importantly, that even if the whole of this figure were to be taken into consideration that admittedly the petitioner's father was earning Rs. 25,237/- per year by way of salary income from the Government and therefore, he cannot be said to come within the category of persons whose main source of income was from agriculture. The reasoning proceeded on the footing that where a greater part of the income has come from salary and only a smaller part of it has come from agricultural income that it was impermissible to contend that the student came within the definition of son of an agriculturist. I need to record that there is one more angle to this, In so far as the University authorities took note of the fact that the petitioner's father is working as a clerk at a place other than the one where the agricultural lands arc located and that therefore, it is obvious that he is not personally cultivating the lands 'and would therefore have to be excluded from the definition of agriculturist, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act. It is against this decision that the present petition has been filed.
3. Petitioner's learned advocate pointed out that very little survives in the dispute at this point of time because the petitioner had already joined his course of studies by the time the matter has come up for consideration or approval by the University and that under the interim orders of this Court he was permitted to continue with the studies and that he was also permitted to lake the final examination which he has completed and that it is only the awarding of the Degree Certificate that has now been held up: The plea was that the entire dispute is virtually academic and that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, equities would be very much in favour of a direction that the petitioner be awarded the degree certificate.
4. I need to deal with this aspect of the matter because the learned Advocate who represented the University has vehemently opposed any such order being passed because he points out that it would result in a premium on dishonesty. He submits that inevitably if a student obtains admission through misrepresentation and that the matter comes to the notice of the University sometime after he joins the course and by the time it is investigated into when a decision is taken, the argument put forward is that the student only commenced the studies but had completed the degree of the Course and as has happened in the present case, inevitably interim orders were passed permitting the student to continue the studies until disposal of the petition which always take a longer time than the duration of the course. In these circumstances, he submits that the procedure should not be sanctioned whereby if an admission has wrongly been obtained and merely because the examinations have been completed that the student be permitted to get away with what is normally not possible. He has submitted that if the decision of the University is correct and if that can be justified, however harsh the decision may sound, that the Courts must uphold the regulations and direct that the admission itself was bad and that therefore, no degree can be awarded on that basis. There is much justification in this submission, because this Court and particularly the Supreme Court has had occasion to observe repeatedly that there should be no condonation of wrong admission merely because a certain amount of time has passed. The principal ground on which this Court must have taken this view is because in each case of wrongful admission, there is also a rightful student who has been deprived of a seat. The Supreme Court has occasion to deal with, while considering cases of Medical students, the modus operands invariably followed which is to enter the College by hook or crook and then to contend that the interest of justice would require that everything that was done should be condoned. The Supreme Court had occasion to disapprove strongly of such a situation and it is therefore, very necessary to observe that in those of the cases where a clear cut finding is recorded that the admission had been obtained through false representation, fraud or any other unfair means, it will be necessary for the Courts to refrain from permitting such students to prosecute the course. I need to lay down very clearly that what has happened in this case should not be permitted to recur and it would therefore be very necessary that the University takes decisions at the earliest point of time and secondly that they place all relevant material before the Court at the earliest point of time so that in those of the cases where interim orders are unjustified, the Courts could dispose of the petitions at that stage itself.
4. The petitioner's learned Advocate submitted that as far as the merits of the case are concerned that the Certificate produced from the Tahsildar is conclusive. He states that it has been demonstrated that the petitioner's family are agriculturists, that they own agricultural lands and that they are cuitivating them. He also relies on an earlier decision of this Court in W.P. No. 35416/93 dated 31-1-1994 in the case of N. G. Venugopal v. University of Agricultural Sciences, wherein the Court had occasion to observe that merely because the parent may be a Government servant that will it not ipso facto disqualify a student from coming within the category of agriculturists if they are otherwise qualified. That was a case in which it was demonstrated that the major source of income did come from agricultural produce. But the University has taken a strong view of the fact that the petitioners has suppressed the fact that his father was employed as a Government employee. The Court held that the mere non-mentioning of the father's occupation would not be sufficient to disqualify the student. The facts of that case were very different from the present ones. As against that decision, respondent's learned advocate relies on an earlier decision in the case of Soma v. State of Karnataka, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had occasion to deal with a situation where the petitioner had obtained admission by misdeclaration of the family income. Even though the Court has upheld the position that there had been a misdeclaration of the family income, the Division Bench observed that there was no option left except to ask the University to regularise the position in view of the fact that under the interim orders of the Court, the student had completed the course and the examination. The Division Bench however had taken a strong view of the fact of misrepresentation and the respondent's advocate submits that it is those observations on which he desires to place reliance. I have already had occasion to record that there cannot be any question of leniency in the case of fraud or misrepresentation relating to admissions, more so, because these practices have now become rampant.
5. Dealing with the merits of the case further, the petitioner's learned advocate submitted that the income from the agricultural property is joint and that there is nothing on record to indicate severance of joint family status and that therefore, it will be the aggregate which will have to be taken into consideration. He also submitted that in this back ground merely because the petitioner's father is also working as a clerk would not in any way change the categorisation of the son who still comes within the four corners of the definition. As indicated by me earlier, the respondent's advocate has seriously contested on the factual position and one of the circumstances on which he relied was that the petitioner's father is working in a place other than the one where the lands are situated and that therefore, even if the definition is stretched that he will not come any way within the term agriculturist as defined in Section 5.
6. The Act envisages special provisions and special concessions for children of agriculturists and to my mind this is for a very specified reason. Those concessions are available only to that category of students and it is equally necessary that the University must be very strict about ensuring that those privileges are not misused and that they are available duly to the students for whom they have been catered. To this extent, the University was perfectly justified in having very carefully examined the material palced before it. A clear interpretation of Section 5 would indicate that the term agriculturist is given a slightly wider definition to include not only those persons who are themselves true manual labourers tilting the soil and cultivating it, but also the tenants and would include persons who own the lands and whose main source of income comes from that land even if they might not have been physically cultivating that land. The Legislature has advisedly used the term "main source of income" in order to restrict the categorisation to those of the agriculturists who virtually live off the lands and to eliminate those who have other sources of income in addition to agricultural income and in whose cases, the agricultural income is not the dominant factor. It is this last aspect that is predominant and it is on this aspect that the University took the view that the joint family income if apportioned between the members would come to much less in the case of the petitioner's father than the salary income and that therefore, he was not qualified to come within the definition of agriculturist. There is only one grey area in this case, namely that none of the further evidence in relation to the structure of the joint family was looked into and secondly, that the difficulty that arises in so far as the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar has certain presumptive value. It is on the basis of this material, that I am inclined to hold that this is virtually a border tine case. The reasoning adopted by the University and their action is thoroughly justified that having regard to the nature of the material that it could be categorised as a border-line case in which the verdict could be either way if further investigation would have been done. Normally, if there has been clear cut, cogent and clinching evidence, I would not have hesitated in upholding the University decision, but having regard to the special circumstances of this case and the finding of fact that the course has now been completed, the only option left for this Court would be to direct that the Degree Certificate be awarded to the petitioner if he has successfully completed the examinations.
7. Before parting with this case, I need to once again reiterate the position that it is with the utmost degree of reluctance and only because of the finding recorded by rue that this is a border line case that the aforesaid direction has been issued. But this case shall not in any circumstances be sought to create a wrong precedent which others may want to follow.
8. In the unusual facts of this case, I am of the view that the petitioner though he has succeeded must be directed to make some amends for what has happened and it is accordingly directed that the costs of this petition quantified at Rs. 1,000/- shall be payable by the petitioner to the University. The payment of the costs shall be condition precedent before the Degree Certificate is issued.
Rule absolute to this extent with costs as indicated.
9. Petition allowed.