Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pradeep Choudhary vs The Rajasthan Agricultural University ... on 11 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(1)WLC253, 1996(2)WLN293
Author: P.P. Naolekar
Bench: P.P. Naolekar
JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction of the Court for his admission to the post- graduate course of M.Sc. (Agriculture) in the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner. Respondent No. 3 Controller of Examinations, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner conducted Post-Graduate Entrance Examinations for various courses. The petitioner appeared at the Entrance Examination and was declared passed: he ranked 44th in the order of merit and was placed in the wait list of general category in the Faculty of Agriculture. The petitioner was called for interview for admission at the College of Agriculture, Beachwal (Bikaner) on 18.7.96 at 10 A.M. alongwith his credentials. The petitioner reported before the authorities, but admission was turned down on the ground that he was awarded supplementary in the B.Sc. Agricultural examinations.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has informed the authorities concerned that he has applied for revaluation and, therefore, he be given provisional admission to the post-graduate course applied for. The petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 3 Controller of Examinations, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner assured his orally that as soon as the marks sheet of revaluation is published and, if there is improvement of marks in the papers in which he was awarded supplementary, and he is declared passed his candidature will be considered as he already stands in the wait list. Thereafter, in the revaluation the petitioner has improved his marks and new marks sheet was given to him on 2.9.96. the petitioner was declared passed in first division. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached respondent No. 2 the Vice Chancellor and submitted application requesting for admission to the P.G. Course.
3. The respondents have issued general guidelines regarding total number of vacancies and devolution of seats in the various categories. 162 seats are allocated for the Faculty of Agriculture. The petitioner was declared passed in the Entrance Examination and selected for admission to the post-graduate course. He was called for interview. However, he was not given admission to the post graduate course as on the date of interview i.e. 18.7.96 he was not possessed of the requisite qualification because supplementary had been awarded to him in the papers. Thus, the petitioner's case is that even after securing first division, he has not been given admission. According to him, persons lower in merit have been given admission and, therefore, he has been discriminately treated.
4. The respondents filed return and the ground for denial of admission to the petitioner as specifically mentioned in the return is, that an F.I.R. has been filed against the petitioner on 15.7.96 at Police Station Jamsar (Bikaner) by Shri B.L. Naval, Kul Sachiv, Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya, Bikaner for offences under Sections 147, 452, 432 and 353 I.P.C. and the conduct of the petitioner is under investigation by the police. A candidate against whom F.I.R. is lodged by the University shall not be eligible for admission as a regular candidate under the guidelines issued by the University. Thus, at the time of granting admission. F.I.R was lodged against the petitioner by the University authority and, therefore, he was not eligible for admission to M.Sc (Agriculture) Course. Secondly, it has been alleged in the return, a candidate seeking admission to the M.Sc. (Agriculture) Course is required to be possessed of the minimum eligibility qualification of having passed B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree Examination of the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner or an examination declared equivalent thereto, with a prescribed percentage of marks. On the date of admission, the petitioner was not qualified as he had not passed B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree Examination; subsequent passing of the examination by the petitioner either by virtue of revaluation or through supplementary examination cannot clothe him with a right to get admission because it will be passing the examination subsequent to the last date fixed for admission to M.Sc. (Agriculture) Course. The petitioner could not produce any proof of passing the qualifying examination on the date he was called for interview. The submission of application for revaluation does not make the petitioner eligible to take admission. It has been alleged, in the alternative, that the University has decided not to grant admission after the finalisation of admissions and admissions were finalised by respondent No. 3 in the third week of July, 1996; and the course has already commenced with effect from 26.7.96. Therefore, it is not possible to grant admission to the petitioner.
5. The point arises in the case for consideration of this Court is, whether there is right of education guaranteed under the Constitution of India; and condition of prohibiting admission on the ground of criminal complaint lodged by the University with the police is arbitrary, unfair and unjust condition and as such is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 41, Chapter IV of the Constitution recognises the individual's right to education. It says that the State shall, within the limits of its pecuniary capacity and development, make effective provisions for securing the right to education. Although a citizen cannot enforce directive principles contained in Chapter IV, but they are not intended to be mere pious legislation. In Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Ors. MR 1992 SC 1858, the apex Court has said that the right to education is concomitant to fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. The State is under a constitutional mandate to provide educational institutions at all levels for the benefit of the citizens. Every citizen has right to education under the Constitution and the State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The right to education directly flows from the right to life and liberty. Right to life with dignity is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the dignity of the individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education.
6. When the person has a right to education, guaranteed under the Constitution of India, that right can only be denied on the grounds which are reasonable, just and fair and not arbitrary. Can a meritorious student be denied admission in college on the ground that the College or University has lodged an F.I.R. against him. Lodging a complaint with the police simply brings into operation the police force to investigate in the matter. The F.I.R. is neither proof of guilt nor conclusively establishes the offence being committed by the person named. The police after investigation may close the F.I.R. on the ground that the facts mentioned therein are not found true. It is against criminal jurisprudence that the man shall be presumed to be innocent unless and until proved to be guilty by a competent Court after giving full opportunity to defend himself. The said ground gives excessive and unbriddled powers in the hands of the University or College authorities to deny admission to a meritorious student. Here they assume the role of prosecutors, Juries and also Judges. On the one hand, there is mere assumption of the student's involvement in the offence, complained to have been committed by him; on the other hand, his entire career is at stake. In such a situation, the right to education should only be given precedence over the pre-ordained guilt of the person by University or College. The condition laid down by the University denying admission to the student for prosecuting further studies is, in my opinion, arbitrary, irrational, unfair and unjust and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the condition is declared to be unenforceable and is struck down.
7. Now, the question is whether admission can be denied to the petitioner on the ground that the course has already commenced and that he was not holding the qualification on the date of the interview i.e. 18.7.96. A reasonable distinction has to be drawn between a student clearing the supplementary examination in subsequent attempt on a latter date, and a student being declared successful on account of revaluation of the papers. In the first instance, the student would not be held to be qualified on the date of interview whereas, in the second instance, the student although deserved to be declared qualified was not declared qualified and, on revaluation, is declared qualified would be held to be qualified retrospectively from the initial date. The student not at all at fault, cannot be penalised for the wrong evaluation by the University or by the Examiner appointed by the University. The petitioner was, in fact, qualified on 18.7.96 but, because of the mistake on the part of the University, was not declared qualified. The University is bound to correct its mistake and cannot take shelter of its own wrong and deny admission to the petitioner.
8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be given admission to M.Sc. (Agriculture) in the discipline he was entitled to on 18.7.96 if a person lower in merit has already been given admission. As it has been said by the University that the course has already commenced, the directions shall be complied with within seven days of the placement of this order before the appropriate authority. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.