Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Manju Lata vs Hitkari Co-Operative Shiksha Mahila ... on 16 July, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987WLN(UC)641
JUDGMENT Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.
1. Ordinance 322 deals with admission to B. Ed. course. It provides that a candidate who after taking a Bachelor's/Shastri Degree of the University or any other University recognised for the purpose by the Syndicate with two teaching subjects (as defined in Note 1 below) has completed a regular course of study in a college, affiliated to the University for one academic year and has during the course of the year delivered at least 40 lessons in a recognised school under the supervision of the staff of the college shall be eligible for admission to the examination for the degree of Bachelor of Education. Under note (i) 'teaching subject' means a subject offered by the candidate at his Bachelor's/Shastri or Master's Degree Examination either as a compulsory subject or as an optional subject as a subsidiary subject provided that the candidate studies it for at least two years and also took University Examinations each year, but shall not include such subjects as were studied by him only for a part of the Bachelor's degree course. Thus the qualifying subjects like General English, General Hindi, General Education, History of Indian Civiliation and Culture, Elementary Mathematics etc. prescribed for the 1st year TDC course of the University or a subject dropped by candidate at the part I stage of the degree course shall not be treated as teaching subjects. In case the Honours graduates besides the Honours subject the subsidiary subjects would also be taken into account provided the candidate studied the same for atleast two academic sessions and also took University examination each year. Under note (ii) only such a candidate shall be allowed to offer social studies for the B. Ed. Examination as have taken their Bachelor's Degree with any two subjects out of History, Political Science, Public Administration, Economics, Geography and Sociology. The petitioner passed her Intermediate from U.P. with compulsory subjects---Hindi and with four optional subjects namely, English Phychology, Sociology and Drawing. Besides this, Hindi was also added as a compulsory subject. The petitioner also passed three optional subjects in second year TDC and thereafter she appeared in third year TDC and passed with three optional subjects namely Hindi, Philosophy and Sociology. She was thereafter awarded Bachelor's degree from the University of Rajasthan.
2. The petitioner applied for B. Ed. course admission to the non-petitioner No.3 Govt. Teachers Training College Rajasthan, Ajmer. The application was submitted by her through the non-petitioner No. 1 Hitkari Co-operative Shiksha Mahila Mahavidyalaya, City Palace, Kota. She was selected by the non-petitioner No. 3 for the B. Ed course education and non-petitioner No. 1 was directed to provide her admission. The selection of the petitioner to the above B. Ed. course examination was conducted with the consultation of non-petitioner No. 2 University of Rajasthan. She took education for B. Ed. course under the optional subjects of Hindi and Social Studies, and also delivered 40 lectures i.e. 20 each in Hindi & Social Studies. She also conducted two tests i.e. one each in both the optional subjects. The petitioner completed regular course of study in the college of the non-petitioner No. 3 affiliated to the non-petitioner No. 2 for one one academic year and thus according to her she fulfilled the requisite requirements for appearing in the B. Ed. examination 1987. Fee was also deposited by her. The petitioner has been restrained from appearing in the B. Ed. examination in 1987 vide Annx. 6 and her admission to B. Ed. course has, has been cancelled.
3. According to the petitioner at the time of admission to B. Ed. course her application was examined and she was found to be eligible and thereafter she was allowed to complete regular studies and she delivered 40 lectures 20 each in Hindi and Social Studies and also conducted two tests and thereafter having completed regular study she cannot now be restrained from appearing in the examination.
4. Notice of the petition was given to the non-petitioner and on behalf of non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 reply has been filed. It has been statad therein that the petitioner was not eligible for admission to B. Ed. course and so far as the subject of Social Studies is concerned, she did not fulfil the eligibility as contained in Ordinance 322(ii) in as much as she had not taken her B.A. degree with any two subjects out of History, Political Science, Public Administration, Economics, Geography and Sociology and therefore she could not have been admitted and the University cannot be held responsible if any admission was given to the petitioner by the non-petitioner No. 3. It is also their case that even at time of her admission it was clearly made known to her that the question of her eligibility for admission to the B. Ed course shall be decided by the University and she must approach the University for decision in the matter. The petitioner did not approach the University for such a decision and had given an undertaking that what ever decision shall be taken by the University in connection with her examination, she will be bound by it. Annexures RR/1 to RR/3 have been placed on record, out of which Annx. RR/1 is said to have been signed by the petitioner and other two by her husband. Rejoinder was filed where in it has been denied that Annx. RR/1 is signed by the petitioner. It is also denied that Annxs. RR/2 & 3 have been signed by her husband and the signatures therein are of her husband. Rather it has been stated that on October 16, 1986 when her husband is alleged to have received the copies of the same, he was not in Kota.
5. In the earlier part of this order we have already referred to Ordinance 322. Before a candidate could be eligible for admission to B. Ed. course it was necessary that he/she must have taken a Bachelor's/Shastri Degree of the University of Rajasthan or any other University recognised for the purpose by the Syndicate with two teaching subjects as defined in note (i). Note (i) has also been referred above. 'Teaching subjects' mean a subject offered by the candidate at his Bachelor's/Shastri or Master's Degree examination either as a compulsory subject or as an optional subject as a subsidiary subject provided that the candidates studied it for atleast two years and also took University Examination each year. But it shall not include such subjects as were studied by the candidate only for a part of Bachelor's Degree course. Thus, a candidate who has not offered a subject in second year TDC after passing the Intermediate examination will not be eligible for admission to the B. Ed. course, because it cannot be said that he/she had taken the B A. degree with two teaching subjects as defined in note (i) of Ordinance 322.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that she had taken English as optional subject in Intermediate and has also taken English as compulsory subject in 2nd Year TDC. According to the petitioner her English subject in Intermediate cannot be lost sight and has to be taken into consideration and if that be so it can be said that she was eligible for admission to B. Ed. course under Ordinance 322. We are afraid that it is not possible for us to interpret. Ordinance 322 in the manner as the learned Counsel for the petitioner wants to do. Teaching subject must have been offered by the candidate at his B.A./Shastri/Masters Degree examination. Intermediate examination cannot be said to be a part of B.A. degree examination. A candidate who has done Intermediate Examination may be eligible for second year TDC but it cannot be said that she has offered any subject at her Bachelor's/Shastri or Master's degree examination. It can be said on the basis of record that the petitioner appeared in General English in 2nd Year TDC and did not appear in General English in 3rd Year TDC & therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner studied for two years and in both the years she offered General English as one of the subjects. It can be said that she appeared only one year out of two years of her studies after obtaining Bachelor's degree. The last part of the note (i) has already been referred and it has been mentioned therein that the qualifying subjects like General English, General Hindi, General Education, History of Indian Civilisation and Culture, Elementary Mathematics etc. prescribed for the 1st year TDC course of the University shall not be treated as teaching subjects. Therefore, General English prescribed for 1st year TDC will not make the candidate eligible for admission to B. Ed. course and it cannot be said that the candidate has taken that teaching subject only for Bachelor's degree examination.
7. though, the petitioner has said that she wanted to take English as one of the subjects, but it was not available. There is no documentary proof to that effect. She could not have been allowed to take that subject because she has not taken that subject as compulsory and has not studied the same for two years and has not taken the examination each year. Therefore, she was not eligible for taking English as one of the subjects. We find no merit in the case of the petitioner that she wanted to take English but she was told that there was no facility for English. As stated in note (ii) of Ordinance 322, at the cost of repetition it may be stated that only such candidates shall be allowed to offer Social Studies for the B. Ed. Examination as have taken their Bechalor's Degree with any two subjects out of History, Political Science, Public Administration, Economics, Geography and Sociology. Admittedly the petitioner has taken her B.A. degree with Hindi, Sociology and Philosophy. Therefore, she could not have been allowed to offer Social Studies for the B. Ed. examination.
8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it was not fault of the petitioner that she was allowed to study during the academic session, delivered 40 lectures, 20 each in Hindi and Sociology, and also conducted two tests one each in both the optional subjects. Therefore, after having completed the regular course she cannot be denied the admission. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on University of Delhi v. Ashok Kumar Chopra and Anr., and Miss Sangeeta Srivastava v. Prof. U N. Singh and Ors. . In the first of the two cases it has been said that if a student who was admitted in violation or breach of Clause l of Ordinance 1 was issued by University Ordinance which prescribed as to who were eligible for admission to the University, then he cannot be denied to appear in the examination because Ordinance X-A in widest terms enabled the Academic Council to grant exemption from the operation of any of the Ordinance governing the admission of the student. It was held that Ordinance X-A made the admission of students contrary to Ordinance 1 not an ultra vires act, but only an irregular act and therefore, the doctrine that there could be no estoppel against a statute had no application to the case. In the same case it has been held that if the terms of a statute are absolute and do not admit of any relaxation or exemption, then anything done contrary to the terms of such statute will be ultra vires and will be void and no person can be estopped from putting forward the contention that what he did was illegal or void. In the instant case Ordinance 322 has been referred earlier which is absolute and the law is well settled that there can be no estoppel against statute. Even if the petitioner could have been allowed to study there being no provision that qualification prescribed for the B. Ed. admission could be relaxed the petitioner could not say that the University is estopped. In the instant case, though it has been denied by the petitioner in her rejoinder that Annxs. RR/1 to RR/3 were at all received by her or her husband but we find no reason to disbelieve the case of the respondents that Annxr. RR/1 bears the signatures of the petitioner and Annxs. RR/2 & RR/3 bear the signatures of the husband of the petitioner A look at Annx. RR/1 will show that it is dated October 20, 1986. It is purported to be written by the petitioner in her own hand and bears her signatures as 'Manju Lata'. It has been mentioned therein that she has selected Hindi and Social Studies as subjects for final examination in B. Ed. and if the University gives any decision then it will be binding on her and she will not be entitled to refund of any examination fee. A comparison of the signatures of Manju Lata on Annx. RR/1 with those on the petition will show that they appear to be of the petitioner and we find no reason as to why the Principal would have forged the undertaking. It also appears that there are two documents Annx. RR/2 and RR/3 and it was intimated to the petitioner that she was not entitled to admission to the B. Ed, course with Social Studies and she was directed to get clarification from the University of Rajasthan. Even for the sake of arguments it is assumed that these two documents Annxs. RR/1 and RR/2 were signed by her husband and she is not bound by them but as stated in Annexure RR/1 it was written by the petitioner and she was bound by any decision taken by the University. Thus, the petitioner cannot have any grievance and she is estopped from challenging the cancellation of the admission. The case of Ashok Kumar Chopra (supra) is hardly applicable to the facts of the instant case. The petitioner was not eligible for admission to the B.Ed, course and she could not even take English as one of the teaching subjects. In the case of Miss Sangeeta Srivastava (supra) the petitioner was admitted to M.A. (part 1) class though she was not eligible as she did not secure minimum prescribed percentage of marks in her B.A. examination. The University informed the concerned college that her admission be cancelled but the college (may be through inadvertance) did not inform the student. She was treated as a regular student throughout the academic year. It was held that the principle of equitable estoppel operated and the university could not refuse her from appearing at the examination when the candidate had placed all facts before the University and had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation. That apart, the University Ordinance permitted grant of exemption in certain cases and therefore non-eligibility of the student would amount to mere irregularity and would not be ultra vires the Ordinance, the Rules or the Act. It is not the case here as there is no provision vesting any power in the University exempting a candidate from Ordinance 322. Thus, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
9. Consequently, the writ petition has no force. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. We may make it clear that any appearance of the petitioner in the examination under the orders of this court will not confer any right on the petitioner.
10. Learned Counsel prays for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case has been decided on its own facts. No case for granting leave to appeal is made out. Leave is accordingly declined.