Madras High Court
Sijin Thomas Jacob vs The Bharathiar University, ... on 15 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001)1MLJ593
ORDER K. Govindarajan, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings dated 8.11.2000 under which the petitioner was informed that in the meeting held on 30.11.2000, the Syndicate of the first respondent University had resolved that the petitioner's admission to M.B.A. degree course during 1999-2000 was cancelled, as the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility requirements prescribed for admission to M.B.A. degree course.
2. The petitioner passed B.Com. (Hons) in second class from St.Xaviers College, affiliated to University of Calcutta in April, 1999. Thereafter, he made an application for issuance of eligibility certificate to the first respondent University. In the proceedings dated 27.8.1999, a provisional eligibility certificate was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent University stating that the petitioner, who has passed B.Com. examination of the University of Calcutta, is eligible for admission to the first year of the M.B.A. course during the academic year 1999-2000, offered in any of the institutions affiliated to the University. Certain conditions have been mentioned in the overleaf. On the basis of the said provisional eligibility certificate issued by the University, the petitioner was admitted in the second respondent college under the management quota and he has completed three semesters and he was permitted to write examinations.
3. In the meanwhile, surprisingly, the University sent a communication on 24.11.1999 stating that the petitioner's admission has not been approved. Hence, the petitioner, to avoid complications, requested the Vice Chancellor of the first respondent University to permit him to continue his studies. The Principal also in his letter dated 26.11.1999, made such a request. The Registrar, in his proceedings dated 30.11.1999, informed the Principal that the admission of the petitioner to M.B.A. degree course during the academic year 1999-2000 in the second respondent college had been approved as a special case and the said candidate's previous qualification will be recognised along with other candidates applying for the same. On that basis, as stated above, the petitioner continued his studies. Thereafter, the impugned memo was sent to the petitioner stating that his admission has been cancelled. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that having permitted the petitioner to join in the college, after examining his eligibility for admission, his admission cannot be cancelled at the later stage, that too, after completing his three semesters. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the provisional eligibility certificate issued by the University on 27.8.1999 and the letter of the Registrar dated 30.11.1999 in support of his submission.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent University has submitted that according to the University guidelines, the petitioner is not eligible to join in the M.B.A. course. Hence, the Syndicate has taken action and passed resolution to cancel the admission of the petitioner. Learned Counsel relied on the conditions mentioned in the provisional eligibility certificate in support of his submission.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner got admission in the second respondent college on the basis of the provisional eligibility certificate issued by the University on 27.8.1999. In the said certificate, it is specifically mentioned about the degree obtained by him in the University of Calcutta and also it is specifically stated that he is eligible for admission in the M.B.A. course in any of the institutions affiliated to the University. While giving such an eligibility certificate, I am unable to understand the condition No. 4 of the said certificate, in which it is stated that the provisional eligibility certificate is valid for this academic year only. When the University is found that the particular candidate is eligible for joining the course, knowing very well that the said course is for two years, how such a condition can be made. The provisional eligibility certificate is being issued only if the University satisfies that the petitioner is eligible to join the particular course and once it is found that the particular candidate is eligible to join particular course, it cannot be restricted for a particular period.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University has relied on condition No. l of the provisional eligibility certificate in support of his submission that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said certificate. Condition No. 1 will not in any way help the second respondent to say that the petitioner is disqualified to be admitted in the college on any other reason.
8. Having given such certificate and having made the petitioner to join in the course, the Registrar sent further communication on 24.11.1999 stating that the petitioner is not qualified to be admitted in M.B.A. course. In the said order, they sought to rely on certain conditions mentioned in the eligibility provisional certificate. Even with respect to those conditions referable to the eligibility of the petitioner for admission in M.B.A. course, when the University after applying their mind satisfied that the petitioner was eligible to be admitted in the course, they cannot go back and say that the petitioner is not eligible to be admitted. Even with reference to the letter subsequently sent by the Registrar in the proceedings dated 30.11.1999 to the Principal, it is stated that the petitioner's admission has been approved as a special case. Having done so, the impugned memo on the basis of the resolution, after one year from the date of admission, cannot be sustained in law. The University cannot play with the students' life, as they are coming to study, complete the course and come out of the college successfully. Even in the initial stage, they should have taken such a decision about the qualification and eligibility.; In this case, as stated above, in the initial stage, the University have verified the records and informed the petitioner in writing that he is eligible to be admitted in any of the institutions affiliated to the University in M.B.A. course. Having done so and after completing three semesters, now the University cannot prevent the petitioner from continuing the studies.
9. This view of mine is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in Anamika Bishnoi v. Manju Chaudhry , while dealing with the similar facts. The Apex Court has held as follows:
...It has been stated in her affidavit in rejoinder that she is at present undergoing the Third Professional MBBS course in Maharishi Dayanand University. This is her final year. She has already successfully completed the Second Year MBBS course. The result of the examination of second professional MBBS course held in May, 1995 has been declared in July, 1995 and she has obtained high marks at this examination. She is now on the verge of completing the MBBS course and it will not be fair to cancel her admission at this stage. No ground at all has been given for quashing her admission to the MBBS course of the Maharishi Dayanand University. In that view of the matter, it is directed that Anamika Bishnoi should be allowed to pursue her studies in the MBBS course in the Maharishi Dayanand University.
10. Even in Sharwan Kumar v. Director General, Health Services , the Apex Court has held as follows:
Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Dholakia, the learned Counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the withdrawal of the eligibility certificate that was issued to the petitioner cannot be upheld and the cancellation of admission of the petitioner to the MBBS course on that basis must be quashed.
11. S.S. Subramani, J. (as he then was) in the recent order reported in J. Sasikumar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1999 Writ L.R. 468, while dealing with the scope of cancellation of admission in the Teacher Training Course, after permitting the petitioner to write examinations, has held as follows:
I do not think that the stand taken by third respondent could be accepted in this case. Respondents have no case that the petitioner misrepresented anything to the Authorities and obtained admission. The fact that the petitioner has obtained only 845 marks was known to respondents even at the time of his admission. Petitioner wanted to get admission only on the basis of those marks and third respondent found him eligible. He has also paid the fees. He was allowed to undergo the course for few months. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he is responsible for the irregularity in the admission. The only allegation is that, there is a mistake on the part of the then principal in charge. For the unilateral mistake committed by third respondent, petitioner cannot be held responsible. The admission given to the petitioner cannot, therefore, be cancelled. The marks obtained by petitioner may be far below the cut off marks. But, the cut off marks are not fixed by any Statute or Rule. The same is taken into consideration only when more candidates are competing for less number of seats. Once it is found that petitioner is eligible for admission and there is also no fraud committed by him, respondents are bound to permit the petitioner to complete the course and also to write the Examination. In this case, on the basis of interim order passed in the earlier writ petition, namely W.P.No. 20658 of 1994, petitioner has completed the first year examination, and what remains is only writing of the second year examination. By virtue of interim order in this writ petition, he has also written the second year examination. In view of my findings above, petitioner is entitled to get the marksheet and diploma.
12. In view of the above settled position of law, the proceedings issued by the University cannot be sustained in law. Before taking such action, the University should think about the fate of the students, who joined the college under the guise of the certificate issued by the University. If the University is started to give such pin bricks, the students cannot continue their studies peacefully. I hope that this will be taken note of in future.
13. With the above observations, this writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 3,000. Consequently, W.M.P.No. 27490 of 2000 is closed.