Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ritu Sharma vs Guru Nanak Dev University & Anr on 3 September, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No. 6959 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
5CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6959 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: September 3, 2014.
Ritu Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
Guru Nanak Dev University and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Ms. Navdeep, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Prateek Parohit, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2.
Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate,
for respondent No. 6.
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. Written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record.
2. The petitioner who had Bachelor of Science degree in a distance education mode with Annamalai University came by admission to M.A. (English) course with the 2nd respondent-College. The college gave admission to her on certain conditions which included that she would PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6959 of 2014 2 submit her DMC for 10+2 and migration certificate. She had also given an undertaking that she understood that her admission was provisional and the admission would be subject to fulfilling conditions prescribed by the Guru Nanak Dev University. She took the examination in 2013 in Part-I English but she was served with a letter from the University on 4.3.2014 that is impugned that she was ineligible to be admitted into the course since the University does not recognize distance education mode or a degree of university whose equivalence has not been obtained from the 1st respondent- University. Admittedly, the petitioner has studied in distance education mode and she has also not secured the equivalence certificate.
3. The petitioner has a contention to make that the eligibility criteria set down by the College at the time of seeking admission did not set out anywhere that the graduate course in distance education would not be permitted. She had also not been informed that equivalence certificate must be obtained. The learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University Versus Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another 2008 (11) JT 543 that addresses the plight of a student who had done his graduate course through distance education mode from Annamalai University and who had been granted admission to LLB with Guru Nanak Dev University, which after the student went through the entire course, was stated to be invalid since the MA degree course obtained from the Annamalai University was not recognized. The Supreme Court held that having regard to the peculiar facts of the case that a student who had given his entrance test in 2004-2005 and who had PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6959 of 2014 3 completed the course in 2007 and also succeeded before the High Court shall not lose the benefit of the degree which he had obtained. The very same judgment states in the earlier paragraph 14 that if the University did not wish to treat the correspondence course and the distance education course as being the same, it was a matter of policy and the court will not interfere with the said policy relating to an academic matter. The Supreme Court was actually allowing the appeal filed by the University in the decision cited by the counsel. If they were making an exception, it was an exception in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution and that was not the law stated by the Supreme Court. The law stated is what is found in paragraph 14 where it has declared that a non-recognition of a distance education mode was a matter of policy which the court could not interfere.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also refers me to the decision in Shri Krishan Versus The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra AIR 1976 Supreme Court 376, where a candidate was allowed to appear in the examination and the question was whether after the examination, the University would be justified in withdrawing the eligibility and denying to a candidate the benefit of studies and the degree. It was a case where the admission form had been forwarded in December 1971 and the examination took place in April/May, 1972. The Court dealt with what the University could have done in 4 to 5 months and it observed that there was ample time and opportunity for the University authorities to have found out the defect and the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6959 of 2014 4 which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in Part-I examination, then by force of the University statute, the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the student who had taken the exam.
5. This case must be seen in the context of some other circumstances that have come about. The case of the petitioner and of the college have a certain history. The petitioner had earlier done Post Graduate Diploma in Web Designing in April, 2008 and again Post Graduate Diploma in Marketing Management in April, 2011 and Diploma in Library Science in April, 2012. The eligibility criteria for all these additional courses had been a degree from a recognized university and the petitioner who had been allowed to pursue her postgraduate diploma course with the very same degree course could not have been denied the benefit of admission to MA English-I. The University would point out to the fact that the petitioner's case in relation to examination which she took and the validity of the post-graduate courses were tested earlier and it is brought out that her case was placed before the Equivalence Committee of the University and the Committee considered the issue of recognition of Bachelor of Science in Fashion Designing in its meeting brought through a report dated 12.8.2009 and got approved by the Vice-Chancellor under the following terms:-
"After some discussion, the committee feels that the both chairperson, Board of Studies have given different comments in this case so the degree was not recognized as equivalent to the PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6959 of 2014 5 correspondence degree. In this connection, the candidate has already spent one year in the PGDWD (Web Designing) course so the candidate is allowed to be eligible for admission to this course as a "special case."
6. The University was taking a sympathetic view of the fact that the candidate had already spent one year in Web Designing and, therefore, she was being considered as eligible for admission as a special case. It had to be a special case, for, the University had brought this subject up earlier and they had set down the eligibility criteria through an ordinance and statute that excluded consideration of courses obtained through distance education. They were literally required to make an exception for the petitioner and the exception in this case was that she had been allowed the benefit of continuing in the course for a year and, therefore, her future ought not to be put to jeopardy as regards the said course. Close on heels to the decision approving the petitioner's candidature, the University had issued specific communication to the Heads of all the University Teaching Departments and the Principals of all the Colleges affiliated to the University through communication dated 17.9.2009 when the petitioner's case was specifically set out as an illustrative example of how there shall not be a repeat of what had already happened. This is brought through Annexure R-1/5 which would require to be re-produced as follows:-
"You are hereby informed that in terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, in the case of Ritu Sharma Vs. GNDU and others, CWP No. 7139 of PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6959 of 2014 6 2009, those students who have done B.Sc. (Fashion Design) by the Distance Education from Annamalai University, they are not to be given admission. Penal action will be taken against them."
The University had to literally contend with the petitioner's case to legitimize her admission by referring to CWP No. 7139 of 2009 and the University, therefore, cautioned the Heads of the Departments that penal action would be taken, if any reoccurrence of allowing for a candidate who had done graduation through distance education to be taken as eligible. The College had, therefore, had sure information of what would be a fate of a candidate pursuing higher education without equivalence certificate and with only a degree through distance education. I must observe that the decision of the University to discredit or render ineligible distance education itself is not at issue. If there is a policy which the University had taken not to recognize degree obtained through distance education, it is a policy well within its own prerogative and indeed approved of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Katwala's case (supra) that it shall not be a matter of intervention by a court. If the petitioner herself sought admission for subsequent year in any other course and the college did not take note of the University warning, it was literally exposing a student to a danger of being discredited and the degree being not awarded after the full course of attendance.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the College plays down its own role by stating that when they granted admission to the candidates, they PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6959 of 2014 7 apprised every candidate including the petitioner of the admissions being simply provisional and that the final decision regarding legitimacy or eligibility will vest with the University. It is a manner of explaining that the college received all the certificates and transmitted them to the University and if the University did not exercise caution and issued also registration number for her to take the examination, it cannot later find fault with the college. I reject the argument and hold that it was the college which has the benefit of undertaking every application with lynxed eyes. It is bound to ensure that an admission which it gives to students does not come by any jeopardy by want of diligences on its part. In this case, it was surely an egregious error on the part of the college to allow the student the benefit of admission without specifically incorporating a condition even in the prospectus that degree from distance education University would not be recognized. If that had been done through prospectus, the question of granting admission to the petitioner simply would not have arisen. A college cannot believe that it is merely an institution to make its money by collection of tuition fee and granting admission, when it is affiliated to a university which did not recognize certain types of degrees of certain universities. Even an argument that the admission was only provisional could be no consolation for a candidate who ultimately comes by a situation that her examination cannot ultimately culminate in securing a degree. There is simply no explanation for the College as to how it could have ignored a specific directive from the University and particularly of the candidature of the petitioner herself that such like student shall not be given PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6959 of 2014 8 any admission. I would only take it that the College was prepared to defy the University and literally dare the University to take penal action or it believed that the University will not mind its lapse and condone the same. Even the petitioner must have also known that her admission to PG Diploma course later came under the University scanner for eligibility and she literally survived by a whisker. She probably thought she would take a chance every time, for, she was able to hoodwink the University for two other years by taking admission in PG Diploma course in two other subjects as well. It has to stop somewhere and was rightly stopped, when she was attempting to do by taking admission in MA English. I would find that the petitioner brought to herself a situation by dogged conduct of believing that her pursuit of every course unmindful of what the regulations were, would carry her through the day. It cannot at all times happen. Even while finding fault with the petitioner for what she failed to do, namely, of securing equivalence certificate by applying for an equivalence to be assessed, I would still find that the College had allowed the admission to take place recklessly inspite of specific directive from the University, I cannot legitimize the result of the examination and secure to the petitioner a postgraduate degree in English. If she had studied for two years, it may have improved her proficiency and she is better of that way but if she looks for a degree through the University she shall not. She would take a lesson that proficiency in postgraduate courses come with certain quality of discipline as well, she lacks the same and so the College. I would deny to the petitioner the benefit of degree, but would impose cost on the College of PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6959 of 2014 9 `50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner for letting her waste two years of study.
8. The writ petition is dismissed but with the above observations.
September 3, 2014 (K.KANNAN)
prem JUDGE
PREM SINGH
2014.09.06 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh