Gujarat High Court
Gujarat University, Ahmedabad vs Harita R. Trivedi And Ors., Etc. on 19 July, 1989
Equivalent citations: AIR1990GUJ181, (1990)2GLR717, AIR 1990 GUJARAT 181
JUDGMENT P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.
1. In all these Letters Patent Appeals, the appellant which is the Gujarat University assails the judgment and order of the learned single Judge on the ground that the learned single Judge should not have directed the appellant to give admission to the petitioners in the main Special Civil Application to the postgraduate degree, courses. According to the appellant, the reasoning given by the learned single Judge in giving such direction cannot be sustained. It is clear from the judgment (1984 Guj LT 95) rendered by the learned single Judge over which the present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed that the learned single Judge has given directions to the authorities namely the Gujarat University and its Selection Committee and also the respondent No. 3 in that petition that henceforth, they shall not resort to spot selection method and also observed that it is grossly arbitrary and open to serious suspicion about even integrity. After observing so, the learned Judge has given reasons for directing the University to admit the petitioners in respective Special Civil Applications to Postgraduate degree course that those who have missed the bus should thank their stars for their deriliction or indifference, With these observations, the learned single Judge has given the facility for the petitioners who were before him to get admitted in the postgraduate degree course. These observations, according to Mr. Shelat, the learned counsel appearing for the. University, has to be set aside and it cannot be treated as a precedent. Mr. Tanna, learned counsel appearing for the students in all these Letters Patent Appeals states that then students who have been admitted have finished their course and most of them have appeared in the examination and have- also passed. In respect of, certain students, who are yet to appear in the examination, as correctly stated by Mr. Shelat, there cannot be any difficulty in appearing in the examination if they have satisfied the required number of attendance. Hence the directions given by the learned single Judge have to be-sustained due to the fact that those students have finished the course as on date and some of them have even passed the postgraduate degree examination.
2.However, as regards the observations of the learned single Judge for the purpose of giving directions to admit those petitioners in the main Special Civil application, we hereby set aside those observations. This we set aside on the ground that when especially spot selection cannot be made by the authorities concerned, it is too much for the Court to mike the spot selection by giving such in order to enable the petitioners who are before the Court to get admission in the post graduate degree course ignoring the case of other lawfully deserving candidates merely because they are not before the Court. In fact, they are necessary parties and without joining them, no relief could have, been obtained by the petitioners and granted by the Court. In any case, the Court could and should have ordered by interim and/or final direction to, the University authorities to work out the admissions in the light of the observations and directions so that no injustice occurs to the absent parties.
3. Wirth these observations, these appeals arc partly allowed accordingly and the observations of the learned single judge are set aside as, above. No order as to costs. No orders on Civil Application.
4. Appeals partly allowed.