Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar vs Jamia Millia University on 18 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998IIIAD(DELHI)148, 1998(44)DRJ26
Author: Cyriac Joseph
Bench: Cyriac Joseph
JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, J.
(1) The Petitioner is a student of First Year B.A. (Hon.) Political Science in the Jamia Millia Islamia a Central University established by the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988. The Petitioner Challenges Annexure-D notification, dated 3.10.97 by which his admission to First year B.A. (Hon.) course was cancelled by the First respondent Jamia Millia Islamia.
(2) According to the petitioner, he applied for admission to First Year B.A. (Hon.) Political Science course in Jamia Millia Islamia during 1997-98. He appeared in the Entrance Test and in the Interview and topped both in the Entrance Test and in the Interview. He was selected for admission and was allowed to deposit the admission fee on 6.10.1997. He was admitted to the course with effect from 20.10.1997 as evidenced by Annexure B admission slip. He deposited necessary fees for issuing the identity card on 27th October, 1997 and the identity card was delivered to him on 5th November, 1997 as evidenced by Annexure C. It is also stated in the petition that though the petitioner was regularly attending the classes from 20th October, 1997, a notice dated 3rd October, 1997 was issued on 5th November, 1997 cancelling the admission of the petitioner. Annexure-D is a copy, of the said notice dated 3rd October, 1997 which reads as follows: "IN view of the decision of the Admission Review Committee not to admit, any candidate with more than 4 years gap in academic career in any course of Jamia, the admission of Mr.Manoj Kumar admitted in B.A. (Hon.) Part I Political Science is hereby cancelled. Mr.Manoj Kumar is advised to get his fee refunded."
AGGRIEVED by the said cancellation of admission, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(3) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent University, it is admitted that the petitioner was admitted to First Year B.A.(Hon.) Political Science course on the basis of the Entrance Test and the interview. The averment of the petitioner that he had topped in the written test and the interview is not denied by the respondent. It is also not disputed that the notice cancelling the admission was issued to the petitioner, only on 5th November, 1997. However, the respondent University seeks to justify the cancellation of admission on the ground that there was a gap of six years between the year of passing the qualifying examination and the year of admission to the First Year B.A.(Hon.) course. According to the respondent, Rule 12 of the Rules relating to admission provided that the case of a candidate who gave up his studies for three or more academic years after taking a Degree/Diploma/Certificate will be considered for admission by the Admission Review Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, the Proctor, the Dean and the Head of the Department concerned. As a matter of policy the Admission Review Committee had decided that any candidate having more than four years gap in academics immediately period to the filling of the application for admission should be denied admission. The said decision was taken keeping in view that the applicants far out number the total available seats and the best have to be selected. It is also stated that the Expert Body (Admission Review Committee) felt that students with least gap in academics should be given a chance on priority vis-a-vis those who have larger academic gaps in their career. According to the respondent, the petitioner who had academic gap of six years was not entitled to admission in the light of the policy decision taken by the Admission Review Committee. But owing to an intentioned error the name of the petitioner somehow got cleared for admission. It is further stated that once the above mentioned anomaly was noticed, a notification was immediately issued for cancellation of the admission of the petitioner. It is further stated that classes in first year B.A. (Hon.) course effectively started only on 3rd November, 1997 and that the admission of the petitioner was cancelled immediately precluding any possibility of his attending classes. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in truth the petitioner got his name registered on 21.10.97, that he attended classes only on 22.10.97 and that subsequently the petitioner did not attend any class in the said course. The respondent has also filed an additional affidavit explaining the rationale for denying admission to candidates who have larger gaps in their academic careers. It is also admitted in the additional affidavit that the impugned notice was issued only on 3.11.97 and that it was wrongly dated 3.10.97. Along with the additional affidavit the respondent has produced a copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Admission Review Committee held on 3rd October, 1997. It is seen from the said minutes that against the name of the Petitioner, the decision originally recorded was "Yes" and it was subsequently scored off.
(4) A copy of the Prospectus issued by the University for 1997-98 was made available by the learned Counsel for the respondents. As per paragraph V.2, of Chapter V of the Prospectus, admissions to under-graduate courses will be made on the basis of merit determined by an aggregate of marks in a written test and an interview. The candidates called for interview shall be three times the total number of seats (category wise) in the course concerned provided that they have secured at least 20 per cent marks in the written test. The eligibility of a candidate in all courses is checked at the time of interview only. It is the sole responsibility of the candidate to ensure the eligibility before applying for admission to a particular course. Candidates selected for interview are required to bring their hall tickets for Entrance Test and attested true copies of the following documents:
(I)proof of passing the qualifying examination together with the mark sheet.
(II)proof of age (III)the character certificate from the Head of the Institution last attended. In case an intervening period is involved a certificate from the Ist Class Gazetted Officer for the intervening period showing the candidate's pre-occupation after leaving the Institution last attended.
(IV)No objection certificate from the employer, if employed.
(V)Certificate of relevant category i.e SC/ST/Urdu candidate/Ward of permanent Jamia employee etc. (5) As per paragraph VI.26 of Chapter Vi of the Prospectus, the eligibility for admission to B.A. (Hon.) course is Senior Secondary School Certificate/Inter-mediate or equivalent examination of a recognised Board or University with not less than 45 per cent marks in aggregate or in the Subject concerned.
(6) As per Rule 2 of the Rules relating to admission contained in chapter Viii of the Prospectus, admission to any course of the Jamia can be cancelled at any time, if any information furnished by the candidate at the time of admission is found to be incorrect.
(7) As per Chapter Ix of the prospectus, the admission of a candidate will not be completed unless he/she has an identity card issued by the Proctor's office and admission is liable to be cancelled if a student does not have an identity card issued and entered in the Proctor's office register within a month of admission.
(8) From the uncontroverted facts in this case, it is clear that as per the requirement of eligibility for admission mentioned in paragraph VI. 26 of Chapter Vi of the Prospectus, the petitioner is eligible for admission to First Year B.A. (Hon.) course in Political Science and that he did not suffer from any ineligibility or disqualification as such. It is also clear that the petitioner had paid the admission fee on 6.10.97 and that he was admitted to the course with effect from 20.10.97 and that the identity card was delivered to him on 5th November, 1997. Even according to the respondents, the petitioner got his name registered on 21.10.97 and attended class on 22.10.97. It is admitted by the respondents that the correct date of the impugned notification (Annexure D) is 3.11.97 and not 3.10.97 Respondents have not disputed the averment of the petitioner that the impugned notice was issued to him only on 5.11.97. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether in the light of the above mentioned facts the respondent University was justified in cancelling the petitioner's admission to the course.
(9) The only ground on which the respondents seek to justify the impugned action is that there was a academic gap of six years prior to the petitioner's application for admission to the course in 1997-98. Respondents rely on Rule 12 of the Rules relating to admissions contained in Chapter Viii of the Prospectus. The said Rule 12 reads thus: "THE case of a candidate seeking admission to courses other than Ph.D., B.E. and other part-time evening courses, who gave up his studies for three or more academic years after taking a Degree/Diploma/Certificate, will be considered for admission by the Admission Review Committee consisting of the Shaikhul Jamia (Vice Chancellor), the Proctor, the Dean and the Head of the Department concerned."
THE above rule does not say that a candidate who gave up his studies for three or more academic years after taking a degree/diploma/certificate is ineligible or disqualified for admission. The said rule only gives a discretion to the Admission Review Committee either to grant or deny admission to such candidates. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was ineligible or disqualified or admission to the course.
(10) As per paragraph V.2 in Chapter V of the Prospectus, a candidate has to bring at the time of interview, proof of passing the qualifying examination together with the mark sheet and, in case an intervening period is involved, a certificate from a Ist Class Gazetted Officer for the intervening period showing the candidate's pre-occupation after leaving the Institution last attended. Admittedly, the petitioner had produced the proof of passing the qualifying examination and the mark list at the time of interview. Hence, it was possible for the respondents to realise at the time of interview that there was a gap of six years in the case of the petitioner. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that at the time of interview he had given an affidavit regarding the gap of six years and that the said affidavit was duly attested by a Ist class Magistrate. Thus, the petitioner had disclosed full facts before the respondents. He had not withheld any information or furnished any incorrect information. Hence his admission could not have been cancelled on the ground that he secured admission by furnishing incorrect information.
(11) The very fact that the petitioner's case was considered by the Admission Review Committee implies that the respondents were aware of the gap of six years in his case It was after considering all the information and materials available with the Admission Review Committee that the said Committee decided to grant admission to the petitioner. It is seen from Minutes of the Meeting of the Admission Review Committee held on 3rd October, 1997 (Annexure A to the additional affidavit of respondents) that wherever the committee decided to grant admission, the decision was recorded as "Yes" and wherever the Committee decided to deny admission, the decision was recorded as "No". In some cases decision was "deferred". In the case of the petitioner, the decision recorded was "Yes". According to the counter affidavit. the admission Review Committee had taken a policy decision to deny admission to candidates who had more than four years gap in academics immediately prior to the filing of the application for admission and it was by an oversight that the admission Review Committee erroneously recorded a decision in the affirmative in the case of the petitioner and the respondents are competent and entitled to correct such error or mistake. However, no such policy decision is contained in the Minutes of the Admission Review Committee. The said policy decision is mentioned only in the counter affidavit which was filed on 27th November, 1997.
(12) Though the minutes of the Admission Review Committee do not contain any policy decision as stated in the counter affidavit, I will assume for the purpose of this case that such a decision had been taken and that individual cases including that of the petitioner were considered on the basis of the said policy decision. I will also assume that it was by an oversight or error that the committee decided to admit the petitioner who was not entitled to be admitted as per the policy laid down by the Admission Review Committee. Even then, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and for the reasons stated hereinafter, I am of the view that the cancellation of the petitioner's admission has to be quashed in the interest of justice. In my view, ends of justice demand that the petitioner be permitted to continue his studies.
(13) As per Rule 2 of the Rules relating to admission, admission to any course of Jamia can be cancelled at any time, if any information furnished by the candidate at the time of admission, is found to be incorrect. Even the respondents have not stated anywhere that the said rule is applicable to the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner had not furnished any incorrect information to the respondents. The rules relating to admission do not envisage any other reason for which the admission already given can be cancelled. Hence the cancellation of the petitioner's admission is not in accordance with the Rules relating to admission.
(14) It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the decision to admit the petitioner was an administrative decision and that a mistake or error therein can be corrected at any time. The respondents may have the right to correct a mistake. But it is not an unfettered right if the mistake was committed by the respondents themselves and if the petitioner was not either directly or indirectly responsible for the mistake and if the correction of the mistake will result in serious prejudice and injustice to the petitioner. In this case, admittedly the mistake was committed by the respondents themselves and the petitioner was not directly or indirectly responsible for the mistake. If the admission given to the petitioner is cancelled by way of correcting the alleged mistake, the petitioner will have to discontinue the course and he will not be able to seek admission in any other college or University at least during this academic year. As already stated the impugned notice was served on the petitioner only on 5th November, 1997. By then, time was over for the petitioner to seek admission in any other college or University. In other words, the correction of the alleged mistake and the cancellation of admission will result in the loss of at least one academic year for the petitioner for no fault of his. Inspite of such serious prejudice and injustice that might be caused to the petitioner, he was not given any notice or hearing before cancelling the admission. Hence the impugned notice cancelling the admission of the petitioner was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and it is liable to be quashed on that ground.
(15) It is also significant that as per the requirements of eligibility specified in the prospectus, the petitioner was eligible for admission to the course in question. He also did not suffer from any disqualification for admission as per the Prospectus. Of course, as per the Prospectus the respondents had a discretion to deny admission even to an eligible and qualified candidate if he had given up his studies for three or more academic years. The petitioner had not withheld any information from the respondents and the respondents were aware of the gap of six years in the case of the petitioner and accordingly his case was considered by the Admission Review Committee which decided to admit him to the course. Admittedly the Admission Review Committee was competent to take such a decision. On the basis of the decision of the Admission Review Committee, the petitioner deposited the fees and he was formally admitted to the course on 20.10.97. He started attending classes on 22.10.97. The University delivered to the petitioner an identity card also. It was thereafter that the impugned notice cancelling the admission was served on him on 5.11.97 In this case the cancellation of admission for correcting an alleged mistake committed by the Admission Review Committee will cause much more harm and injustice than any harm and injustice that might be caused if the alleged mistake is not corrected.
(16) The respondents have not disputed the averment of the petitioner that he had topped the written test and interview. If the petitioner is allowed to continue his studies will not result in granting admission to a candidate who was ineligible or disqualified as per the prospectus issued by the University. It will not also result in a candidate with higher marks or better merit being denied admission to accommodate the petitioner. Further, even if the impugned notice is given effect to and the petitioner's admission is cancelled, no other candidate can be given admission at this belated stage and the seat will remain unfilled. It has also to be noted that on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court on 17th November, 1997 the petitioner has been attending classes during the pendency of this case. Considering all these aspects, I do not find any reason to reject the prayer of the petitioner to allow him continue his studies on the basis of the admission already given to him.
(17) Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Sujatha Vs. Marathwada University & Others reported in 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 155 and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Kanishka Aggarwal Vs. University of Delhi and others reported in 43 (1991) Delhi Law Times 670. In the first case the appellant before the Supreme Court was found to be ineligible for admission to Mbbs course as per the provisions in the University Ordinance. Still, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant to continue her studies on the ground that she had already been admitted to the course and had attended lectures and that no one else can utilise the seat in case the appellant therein was not permitted to join. In the second case relied on by the Counsel for the petitioner a Division Bench of this Court directed the University to allow the petitioner to continue his studies in the LL.B first year course even though it was found that he had not obtained the requisite percentage of marks for admission to the course. The case of the petitioner herein is much better since he was eligible and qualified for admission to the course and had topped in the written test and interview and was entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit. It may also be pointed out that in Sanatan Gauda appellant Vs. Berhampur University & Others, respondents , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the University cannot punish the student for the negligence of the Principal or the University Authorities.
(18) In view of what has been stated above this writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The impugned notification (Annexure D) is quashed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue his studies on the basis of admission already given to him. There will be no order as to costs.