Madras High Court
K. Devaraj vs The Secretary To Government Education ... on 21 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)CTC379
Author: V. Dhanapalan
Bench: V. Dhanapalan
JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. The petitioner is a student seeking admission to 3 year B.L. Degree course in the Government Law College, Coimbatore.
2. The petitioner studied in Government Higher Secondary School, Udumalpet and passed in the Higher Secondary Examination held in March 1992. He joined the course of Diploma in Teacher's Training Education in 1992-93 in Islamic Teacher Training Institute, Kaniyur, Udumalpet. He did that course for nine months and he could not continue the course for want of recognition by the Institute. Then, the petitioner had struggled for his very livelihood and in the meanwhile, he completed the Diploma Course in Cooperative Training. Later, he joined M.Com in Annamalai University under Open University System and completed the course in May 2005 with 56.6% of marks in second class.
3. Later, the petitioner applied for 3 year B.L. Course Entrance Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. In the Prospectus, it has been clearly mentioned that those who have appeared for the final year examination for the degree course in the year 2005 and awaiting results may also apply. Subsequently, he received the Hall Ticket no.340579 and wrote the Entrance Examination at Coimbatore on 14.08.2005. The result was published on 25.08.2005 in which he secured 50.375%. Thereafter, the counseling letter was sent to him asking him to appear for the counseling session on 19.09.2005, the first day of counseling for 3 year B.L. course as he secured very high marks. His overall rank is 63 in O.C. (open competition). In view of his ranking position, he was sure to get admission to the Government Law College, Coimbatore.
4. He appeared for counseling on 19.09.2005 in time and his name was called and he was furnished with the form for the counseling session and was asked to fill up the form. He duly filled up the same and was eagerly waiting for his turn to come. He was called for verification of original documents and he produced the following documents.
Original mark sheet for the first year Internet printout of marks for the second year M.Com course Original Community Certificate Original form of counseling session including the mark sheet of the entrance examination and counseling intimation Identity card issued by Annamalai University along with Hall Ticket for Final Year M.Com examination 2 passport size photographs.
5. He was told by the counseling authorities that Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate issued by Islamic Teacher Training Institute, which were shown to them were sufficient. He told them that he had passed M.Com course under Open University System in Annamalai University securing 56.66% of marks and that the Provisional Certificate would be issued on 20.09.2005 and undertook to produce the same in the evening on 20.09.2005 thereby requesting the authorities to give admission and issue him the Admission Letter. But, without issuing the Admission Letter to the petitioner, the counseling authorities directed him to contact the Registrar, the third respondent herein, asking him to get a letter from the Registrar in regard to this matter. The petitioner had met the Registrar and made a representation to him that he would furnish the original provisional certificate in the evening on 20.09.2005 and appealed to him to admit him in the Government Law College, Coimbatore and give him a day's time enabling him to produce the original provisional certificate. But, the Registrar refused to permit the petitioner to take part in counseling. On 21.09.2005, in the morning, the petitioner had been to the Counseling Centre and met the Registrar and produced the Provisional Certificate who in turn, refused to accept it and did not give him the Admission Letter.
6. Aggrieved by the action of the third respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and this Court was pleased to admit the writ petition and passed an interim order on 27.09.2005 to reserve one seat for the petitioner to Government Law College, Coimbatore. Accordingly, this interim order of the Court was communicated to the respondents and it is informed by the counsel for the respondent that one seat is reserved for the petitioner.
7. The main contention of the petitioner is that, the authorities having permitted him under Instruction 2(iii) of the Prospectus to apply and write the Entrance Test though the results of the qualifying examination had not been published, the respondents ought to have given him provisional admission and also reasonable time to produce all the required documents.
8. A reading of the Instructions 2(iii) and 2(vii) of the Prospectus is as below:
2(iii) Those who have appeared for the final year examination of the above-mentioned degree courses in the year 2005 and awaiting results may also apply.
2(vii) Candidates who have not passed qualifying examination and not received the degree/provisional certificate on the date of counseling are not eligible for admission to 3 year degree course.
9. The petitioner further contends that Instruction 2(vii) must be read subject to Instruction 2(iii) and that Instruction 2(iii) is over-riding. Under Instruction 2(iii), the petitioner has acquired a valuable legal right to get admission to the B.L. Degree course and it cannot be deprived of by the unreasonable condition imposed under Instruction 2(vii). Since the request of the petitioner to grant him time to produce the Provisional Certificate has been turned down by the third respondent, he contends that the action of the third respondent is arbitrary and unfair and further submits that it is unreasonable on the part of the counseling authorities to insist on the production of final year mark sheet and Provisional Certificate in spite of the fact that he had informed that same would be issued by the concerned authority the very next day of counseling i.e. 20.09.2005.
10. The petitioner contends that the 3 year B.L. course has not been commenced and the date of opening of the College also has not been announced and in such circumstances, the respondents ought to have admitted him to the course and granted him time to produce the required original certificates.
11. He contends that he has got legal right to take part in counseling and choose a College of his choice and further contends that if he had been allowed to take part in counseling, he would have definitely been admitted to the Government Law College, Coimbatore.
12. In such circumstances, he has challenged the action of the third respondent and challenges Instruction 2(vii) of the Prospectus on the ground that the authorities have permitted candidates who have appeared for degree courses and are awaiting results and it is not proper to insist that the Provisional Certificate has to be produced at the time of counseling itself. It is contended by the petitioner that he cannot be penalised for the delay on the part of the University in furnishing the required certificates.
13. The petitioner, in support of his contention, has filed a supplemental affidavit on 19.10.2005 wherein, he had submitted that consequent to the publication of results by the University, he had been furnished with Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate. He further submits that Annamalai University is a premier institution founded in the year 1929 with adequate teaching faculty and thus he had come out successful in the examination conducted by the University.
14. Again, the petitioner contends that having called him for counseling and having sent the intimation letter, the respondents ought to have allowed him to take part in counseling and the respondents 2 to 4 ought not to have insisted on the production of Provisional Certificate and other certificates. Thus, he contends that he has been denied the opportunity to take part in counseling though he was called for the same. The petitioner further contends that the action of the respondents 2 to 4 is irrational and there has been procedural impropriety and the petitioner and some other students who studied in Annamalai University under Distance Education and wrote the Entrance Test for B.L. Course have been singled out for hostile discrimination and therefore, the action of the respondents is most unjustifiable without any reasonable basis and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. Mr. D. Sadhasivan, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his submissions has contended that the impugned instruction 2(vii) of the Prospectus is unreasonable and unfair and therefore, it is liable to quashed in as much as the authorities have permitted the candidates who have appeared for the degree courses and are awaiting results and it is not proper to insist at the time of counseling itself that Provisional Certificate has to be produced. He further contends that the petitioner's eagerness in studying law should not be thwarted by the various reasons like delay in publication of results which consequently leads to denial of opportunity to persons who have already written the Entrance examination and scored higher marks getting admission in Government Law Colleges. He submits that the authorities are duty bound to admit the students to B.L. Degree course by granting them a reasonable time to produce the Provisional Certificate before the College commences and therefore, the action the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to take part in the counseling is unreasonable, unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the condition imposed in Instruction 2(vii) is arbitrary, unreasonable and therefore it is liable to be quashed.
16. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the specific case of the petitioner that on the crucial date of the counseling, he had passed the basic degree qualification to get admission in the Law College. The learned counsel, in his submissions, has made out a case that the petitioner had written the M.Com final year examination under Open University System in Annamalai University in the month of May 2005. Awaiting results, the petitioner wrote the Entrance Examination at Coimbatore Law College for admission to 3 year B.L. Degree course conducted by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University on 14.08.2005. The results of the Entrance Examination were published on 25.08.2005 in which he secured 50.375% and consequently, on 31.08.2005, the counseling letter for admission to Government Law College was sent to the petitioner under Open Competition category. Since the petitioner had scored very high marks in the Entrance examination with his overall rank as 63, he appeared for counseling on 19.09.2005 itself, i.e. the first day of the counseling and when his name was called for, he produced before the counseling authorities, the original documents stated supra.
17. It is also the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was informed by the counseling authorities that the Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate issued by the Islamic Teacher Training Institute were sufficient and the petitioner had also informed the respondents herein that he had passed M.Com degree course in second class with 56.66% of marks and produced the mark sheet print out taken from Internet. He had informed the counseling authorities that the Provisional Certificate would be issued on 20.09.2005 and had undertaken to produce the same in the evening of 20.09.2005, i.e. the very next day of counseling.
18. It seems that this request of the petitioner has not been accepted by the counseling authorities, who directed him to approach the Registrar, the third respondent herein, to get a letter from him in this regard. He had met the Registrar who had not taken into consideration the request made by the petitioner and his appeal to the Registrar has not yielded any result and the Registrar has not even considered for grant of one day's time to produce original Provisional Certificate, though, according to the petitioner, he has passed the M.Com course and he has to only produce the original Provisional Certificate on the very next day of counseling i.e. on 20.09.2005. In the meanwhile, on 20.09.2005, the petitioner was furnished the Provisional Certificate dated 12.09.2005 by Annamalai University and on 21.09.2005, in the morning hours, the petitioner had gone to the Counseling Centre, met the Registrar and produced the Provisional Certificate. But, the Registrar had refused to receive the same and did not give him the Admission Letter. Aggrieved by this action of the third Respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking admission to Government Law College, Coimbatore, and this Court was pleased to admit the writ petitioner and passed an interim order to the respondents to reserve one seat for the petitioner.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of Orissa High Court reported in AIR 2001 Orissa 61 (Deep Kumar Thadani v. Chairman, Admission Sub-Committee, Joint Entrance Examination (K & M) and the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SCW 5699 (Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE) and contends that mere non-production of relevant certificate cannot be a ground for denial of admission.
20. In the decision of the Orissa High Court cited supra, denial was on the ground that original mark sheet has not been produced even though provisional mark sheet has been produced and the explanation of the candidate that he had lost the original mark sheet was accepted by the Court. In such circumstance, the Court held that denial of admission was improper.
21. In the decision of the Apex Court cited supra, the necessary correct certificate has been produced at the time of second counseling and the Apex Court observed that every infraction of rule need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
22. Mr. Suresh Viswanath, learned Government Advocate has appeared for the first respondent and Mr. V.M.G. Ramakannan, learned counsel has appeared for the second, thrid and fourth respondents and the third respondent has filed the counter affidavit on behalf of second and fourth respondents. In their counter, they have denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition except those which are specifically admitted.
23. The case of the third respondent is that the third respondent university issued Notification calling for applications for the Common Entrance Examinations for 3 year / 5 year Law Degree Courses. Along with the applications, Prospectus was also supplied. In the Prospectus, it was clearly mentioned under Para 2(iii) that those who have appeared for the final year examination of the above mentioned degree course, i.e. bachelor degree course in the year 2005 and awaiting results may also apply. Further, under Para 2(vii), it was clearly mentioned that candidates who have not passed qualifying examination and not received the Degree/Provisional Certificate on the date of counseling are not eligible for admission to 3 year degree course. The petitioner, is a candidate coming under Clause 2(iii) above. But, as he was unable to produce the Degree/Provisional Certificate on the date of counseling, he could not be considered as eligible for selection as mentioned in 2(vii). Knowing fully well the situations and the conditions, the petitioner had appeared for the Entrance examination.
24. It is further contended by the third respondent that the candidate has appeared for the Entrance Examination for 3 year B.L. Degree course on 14th August 2005 and scored marks above the cut-off marks in the Entrance examination and therefore, he was called for to the counseling session. In the letter sent to the candidates calling for appearance at the counseling session, it was clearly mentioned that request for change of time or time for payment of fee or production of original certificates will not be entertained under any circumstances. Further, it is mentioned therein that in case of failure to appear personally on the appointed date and time with original certificates, the claim for selection will not be entertained, since selection of candidate gets over on the date of counseling.
25. It is the specific case of the third respondent that the petitioner has not produced the original certificates for passing the basic degree, at the time of counseling. Therefore, he could not be allotted a seat. It was also not known on the counseling date as to when the results would be published or whether the petitioner would come out successful in the examination. In such a situation, there is no arbitrariness or illegality or unreasonableness committed by the third respondent university. Having permitted the petitioner to write the examination will not automatically confer on him, the right to be considered for selection. Selection can be made only on the production of original certificates. In other words, the selection is not automatic for those who have taken entrance examinations. Therefore, the instructions given in the Prospectus under 2(iii), 2(vii) and instructions issued in the call letter for counseling should be read jointly. The reading cannot be done as interpreted by the petitioner in the said paragraph. Also, the respondent submits that 3 year B.L. Degree course has already been commenced and therefore, the petitioner's request is against the principles of natural justice.
26. The third respondent university contends that the impugned instructions challenged in this writ petition under Instruction 2(vii) in the prospectus is not unreasonable as alleged by the petitioner. Non-publication of results by Annamalai University on or before the date of counseling cannot be taken as ground for deferring the counseling session for this petitioner alone. Mere taking the entrance examination does not confer any right for admission.
27. The third respondent university further contends that during the last academic year, i.e. 2004-2005, series of writ petitions were filed by similarly situated candidates. One of such is W.P. No.25751 of 2004 wherein, a candidate who had studied B.A. (History) through Annamalai University through correspondence course and awaiting results at the time of counseling prayed for admission. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition on 05.10.2004 held that the reason given by the University for non-consideration of the petitioner's application is perfectly valid. The action of the University in not permitting the petitioner at the counseling session is not unconstitutional or violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
28. The third respondent university submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner had not produced the certificates for passing the B.A. Degree course, the candidate cannot claim any right to be considered and the request for reservation of one seat is not fair in the interest of justice and such reservation of seat would only disrupt the system of counseling itself as there are many similarly placed candidates awaiting their turn and therefore, the writ petition deserves no consideration at all and is liable to be dismissed.
29. On 06.01.2006, the third respondent university has filed an additional common counter informing this Court that common counter affidavit of this respondent filed earlier may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit and submitted that last counseling for general category for the 3 year B.L. Degree course was completed by 30.09.2005 and thereafter no admission has been made in the Government Law Colleges under general category.
30. In such circumstances, the third respondent has prayed that this Court may dismiss the writ petitioner filed by the petitioner.
31. Heard both sides. I have carefully gone through the various averments made in the affidavit and I have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and in my opinion, there are two important issues to be decided in this case.
Whether petitioner had the basic degree on the date of counseling i.e. on 19.09.2005 and Whether the impugned Instruction 2(vii) in the Prospectus challenged in this writ petition is arbitrary and irrational and against the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
32. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner had studied in Government Higher Secondary School in Udumalpet and passed in the higher secondary examination held in March 1992. Later, he had joined the course of Diploma in Teacher Training Education in 1992-93 in Islamic Teacher Training Institute, Udumalpet. He had studied there for nine months and for want of recognition by the Institute, he had to discontinue the course.
33. Later, he had completed the Diploma course in Cooperative Training and joined M.Com course under Open University System in Annamalai University and completed the course in May 2005 in second class with 56.66%. Immediately after his M.Com degree examination, he had applied for B.L. Degree Entrance examination conducted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University on 14.08.2005, the results of which were published on 25.08.2005 and he secured 50.375% at the Entrance examination. Accordingly, on 31.08.2005, counseling letter was sent to the petitioner for the O.C. (open competition) category for the counseling to be held on 19.09.2005. On 12.09.2005, the final results with marks published by the University for M.Com course was made available in the internet and a printout of the final mark sheet was taken from internet by the petitioner though he was not having the original Provisional Certificate on his hand on that date. On 19.09.2005, the crucial date for selection, i.e. the first day of counseling, the petitioner appeared for counseling as he scored very high marks in the Entrance examination with his overall rank as 63 in O.C. category. He appeared for counseling in time and when his name was called for for the purpose of verification of original certificates, he produced all his original certificates as stated earlier and in respect of his original M.Com degree certificate, he informed the counseling authorities that he had passed the M.Com examination and the certificate would be issued by Annamalai University on 20.09.2005, the very next day of counseling.
34. It has also been stated that the Provisional Certificate dated 12.09.2005 was furnished by Annamalai University to the petitioner only on 20.09.2005, the very next day of crucial date of counseling. In the morning hours of 21.09.2005, the petitioner went to the Counseling Centre, met the Registrar and produced the Provisional Certificate but the Registrar refused to accept the same and did not give him the Admission Letter and therefore, he is aggrieved by this action of the third respondent.
35. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has passed the M.Com degree examination at the time when he was called for counseling. Therefore, the decision of the University in not admitting the petitioner is not fair since the petitioner had qualified on the date of counseling but the petitioner was having only one difficulty before the counseling authorities and that is, he was not in possession of the original Provisional Certificate and his request for production of the same on the very next day is found to be reasonable and ought to have been accepted by the third and fourth respondents herein.
36. By filing a reply to the common counter affidavit filed by the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that one candidate who has written B.Sc. Final year examination under Distance Education was called for counseling on 21.09.2005. On that date, the result was not published and the Provisional Certificate also was not furnished. Still, she has been given admission and she is now doing her B.L. 3 year course in Government Law College, Coimbatore. Hence, the learned counsel claims that the petitioner is also similarly placed yet, he has not been provided a seat and thus, there is a discrimination. This contention of the petitioner has not been rebutted by the respondent herein and therefore, there are circumstances under which the respondents have considered a similar request made by some of the candidates. In such a situation, the petitioner also ought to have been treated similarly and his claim for admission might be considered.
37. In respect of the second issue, whether Instruction 2(vii) of the Prospectus is unreasonable or in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has not pointed out anything arbitrary or unreasonable in applying that provision. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the impugned Instruction in the Prospectus is not a new one or arbitrary or unreasonable as alleged by the petitioner. On the other hand, he has pointed out that this Instruction has been scrupulously followed by the third respondent University for many years without any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. In fact, the petitioner has challenged this impugned Instruction only to the extent of deferring the counseling session which is not permissible under the procedure contemplated in the Prospectus and therefore, impugned Instruction 2(vii) cannot be said to be an unreasonable one and does not need to be quashed. Other than this, non-consideration of the petitioner's request is not the ground for challenging the impugned Instruction which has been scrupulously followed by the respondent university all along. In that ground also, the petitioner has not made out a case to challenge the impugned Instruction 2(vii) of the Prospectus and except the third and fourth respondents' action in not considering the petitioner's request to the extent of permitting the petitioner to produce the original Provisional Certificate on the very next day of crucial date of counseling. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner to quash the impugned Instruction 2(vii) of the Prospectus is not an acceptable one.
38. With regard to the first contention, the petitioner has to succeed for the reason that, on the crucial date of counseling, he had passed the M.Com examination but has not produced the Original Certificate in that connection. As it has been stated supra and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner for some consideration that the non-production of relevant certificate cannot be a ground for denial of admission.
39. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on one decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SCW 5699 (Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE) in which case necessary certificate has not been produced at the time of second counseling and a portion of the said decision reads as follows:
Every infraction of rule need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
40. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on one decision of the Orissa High Court reported in AIR 2001 Orissa 61 (Deep Kumar Thadani v. Chairman, Admission Sub-Committee) in which case, denial was on the ground that original mark sheet has not been produced and the explanation of the candidate that he had lost the original mark sheet was accepted by the Court and in such circumstances, the Court held that denial of admission was improper.
41. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Paragraph 25 of a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 1230 (Charles K. Skaria and Ors. v. Dr. C. Mathew and Ors.) which reads as follows:
We thus reach the conclusion that the three candidates who had been eventually admitted by the selection committee could not be ousted merely for the reason that the certificate of diploma had not been produced together with the application for admission. Nor indeed, could Government be faulted for issuing a directive to the selection committee that applications from students of the diploma course could be considered subject to the condition that they would "produce the diploma certificates before finalizing the selection to post-graduate courses". The equity of this instruction of the Government comes into bold relief when we realize that no party in this Court has a case that the candidates admitted by the selection committee did not secure a diploma in Opthalmology.
42. The above ruling of the Supreme Court has guided properly that non-production of the certificate at the stage of selection is not a ground for denial of admission. Therefore, the request of the petitioner that he would produce the Provisional Certificate required by the Committee on the very next day of counseling, i.e. well before the selection list is finalised, is reasonable. In my opinion, the above-referred decision of the Supreme Court is applicable to the petitioner's case.
43. From the foregoing discussion and the various grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the common counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, it is very clear that on the crucial date of counseling, the petitioner was having the basic qualification as per the requirement but was not able to produce the required certificate and therefore, on this count, the petitioner has to succeed.
44. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced to the extent that the issue raised in this writ petition has to be allowed in respect of the challenge to the impugned Instruction 2(vii) of the Prospectus. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not made out a case and therefore, the main challenge of the petitioner is devoid of merits. In respect of the second issue, the petitioner's challenge of the impugned Instruction cannot be accepted and the writ petition is dismissed in that respect.
45. In such view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner in getting admission to Government Law College for the year 2005-2006 is to be considered in the light of the above discussion and while taking into account the petitioner's case that he had passed the qualifying examination on the crucial date of counseling, the writ petition is partly allowed directing the respondents to permit the petitioner as expeditiously as possible to join the 3 year B.L. Degree course for the academic year 2005-2006 in the Government Law College, Coimbatore, and the writ petition is ordered accordingly to the extent indicated above, without any order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. No.36372 of 2005 is closed.