Delhi High Court
Md. Abrar Alam vs Jamia Hamdard And Anr. on 28 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: 134(2006)DLT306
Author: Anil Kumar
Bench: Anil Kumar
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J.
Page 3090
1. The petitioner has sought a writ against the respondents directing them to give admission to the petitioner in the course of Master of Pharmacy (M. Pharma) for the year 2006-07 as per the preferences given by the petitioner in his admission form bearing No. 55664.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of controversies between the parties are that the petitioner completed his B. Pharm from respondent No. 1, Jamia Hamdard (a deemed University) and also qualified GATE 2006 and scored 421 (95.02%).
3. The score card of the GATE qualified by the petitioner scoring 95.02% was issued by and on behalf of Ministry of Human Resource Development, Page 3091 Government of India, dated 15th March, 2006 and the GATE score of the petitioner is valid up to 31st March, 2008.
4. The petitioner applied for admission to the course of M. Pharm for the year 2006 and he was given an admission form bearing No. 55664. According to the averment of the petitioner, on account of bonafide confusion and mistake, he could not mark his GATE performance on the relevant column in the said form. The petitioner, however, contended that along with the form, he had submitted the copy of the GATE Score card dated 15th March, 2006 which was issued to him by the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
5. Pursuant to the admission form filled by the petitioner, an admit card bearing roll No. 19718 for appearance in the entrance test was issued. The petitioner appeared in the entrance examination. After the entrance examination, four lists along with waiting list of selected candidates were displayed, however, the name of the petitioner was not included, therefore, petitioner made a representation dated 5th July, 2006. Since the name of the petitioner was not included and the last date for admission was 17th August, 2006, therefore, petitioner filed the present petition on 10th August, 2006.
6. In reply to the averments made by the petitioner, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents along with the copy of the form No. 55664 of the petitioner. From the copy of the form produced by the respondents, it is apparent, which was also admitted by the petitioner, that he had not filled his GATE percentage in the said form.
7. The respondent contended that the petitioner has concealed and mis-represented the facts as he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was categorically asserted that the copy of the GATE score card was not annexed with the application. Since a weightage of 70% had to be given for the performance in GATE, and as the admission form did not stipulate the percentage of GATE examination nor the copy of the score card was annexed, the performance of the petitioner could not be ascertained and was not considered and, therefore, the name of the petitioner was not included.
8. The reliance was also placed emphatically by the respondents on the important instructions stipulated on the admission form which are as under:
Important Instructioins:
1. Read the Prospectus carefully before filling in the form.
2. Please fill in all the entries in Capital Letters using a Black Ball Point Pen only.
3. Do Not Staple/Pin Any Document With This Form. (Use Clip)
4. Application form with incomplete information and without prescribed fee will not be processed.
5. Same form can be used for applying for admission to more than one programme to study. However, the candidate has to enclosed test/processing fee according to the number of programmes he/she is applying for.
9. The eligibility conditions for M. Pharma Programme are stipulated in the Bulletin of Information which are as under:
Eligibility:
Page 3092 A candidate seeking admission to M. Pharm programme must have-
Passed B Pharm/B Pharm (Unani) examination or any other examination recognised by Jamia Hamdard or on institution recognised by Jamia Hamdard and AICTE, securing at least 55% marks in the aggregate of theory papers. NOTE:
Non GATE candidates may be eligible for seats under NRI/sponsored category in case GATE qualified candidates are not available. For consideration under the sponsored category, candidates should have a two years full time work experience in a registered firm/industry/educational institution. Selection Procedure The applicants for admission to the M.Pharma programme (both General and NRI/sponsored category) shall have to appear in the written entrance test. The test paper will comprise of questions based on B.Pharm syllabus of Jamia Hamdard. The selection will be made on the basis of the merit prepared by apportioning the following weightage. Weightage of percentile secured in GATE 70% Weightage of written entrance test conducted by Jamia Hamdard 30%
10. The Bulletin of Information also provided general information and guidelines for admission to M. Pharm Programme which are as under::
The applicants are advised to read carefully the contents of this prospectus and familiarize themselves with the relevant rules governing the Admission/Entrance Test/Interview, of Jamia Hamdard. They should also check all the eligibility criteria including age requirement for a particular programme. Marks obtained which are less even by a fraction shall not be rounded off to the next whole number to determine the eligibility. University will not be responsible if a candidate is denied admission for not fulfillling the eligibility criteria even if he/she has cleared the Entrance Test and has been issued offer letter for admission to a particular programme of study.
2. Bachelor's degree signifies that the degree has been obtained under 10+2+3 system of education or equivalent.
3. In the Prospectus, information regarding admission is given only in brief. Rules of eligibility are followed strictly. The University, however, reserves the right to refuse admission to an individual without assigning any reason. A candidate shall not be entitled to claim admission as a matter of right even if he/she is otherwise eligible. Furthermore, if any error/omission of any candidate are made by the University at the time of admission, the University has the right to cancel such admission at any stage when such error is discovered.
4. By obtaining the Admit Card and appearing in Entrance Test, a candidate does not confer any right to claim admission if the candidate does not fulfilll all the eligibility conditions prescribed by Jamia Hamdard.
Page 3093
5. Application found to be incomplete or not submitted on the prescribed form or those submitted after the last date shall not be entertained in any case. No relaxation in the last date will be granted. However, those applications, which are received after the last date but bear a postal stamp showing last date or an earlier date will be accepted if they are received within couple of days after the last date.
It is categorically stipulated that application found to be incomplete or not submitted as per the prescribed form or those submitted after the last date shall not be entertained in any case.
11. Regarding allowing the petitioner to appear in the entrance examination, it was contended that since the petitioner has filled the form, he was allowed to appear in the examination, however, when merit list had to be prepared, the GATE percentage was required and since neither in the form the GATE percentage was given nor a copy of the GATE performance was annexed with the form, therefore, the case of the petitioner could not be processed and his name could not be included in any of the lists.
12. According to respondents, petitioner should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. It is also contended that the seats in M. Pharm course are limited and it is not only the form of the petitioner which was not considered for incomplete information but there are many other candidates whose applications have not been considered for giving incomplete information and in the circumstances the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
13. In reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in the rejoinder, petitioner contended that respondents with malafide intention and to overcome the legal claim of the petitioner has destroyed the document of the petitioner and, therefore, the respondents are guilty of destruction of the evidence.
14. The reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on , Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman JEE and Ors. to contend that the petitioner had the eligibility qualifications which had to be established by producing the necessary certificates and since the petitioner did not mark his percentage in the form on account of bonafide mistake, the petitioner ought to have been given another opportunity and should have been allowed to produce the score card of the GATE examination. For the proposition that the petitioner ought to have been given another opportunity to produce his GATE percentage, the petitioner relied on , Mineral Development Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Anr.
15. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on , Sadanand Mishra v. Forest Research Institute and Ors.; 2002 (65) DRJ 549 Zaheena Jamal v. University of Delhi and Anr. and 2002(63) DRJ 601 Bhawna Sharma(Dr.) v. University of Delhi to contend that the Court Page 3094 should not device and enforce its own criterion pertaining to admission as the decision must be left to the concerned academic body. The criteria of not giving admission has been applied uniformly in cases where admission form was not complete or where requisite fees was not paid. It was further contended that on account of litigative persistence the petitioner should not be allowed any relief in reference to other candidates whom admission has been denied on account of incomplete information rendered by them.
16. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the petition, counter affidavit and the rejoinder. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not fill his GATE Score in the admission form. The contention of the petitioner is that he had annexed a copy of the GATE score card along with the application form which fact has been emphatically denied by respondents who have produced a copy of the admission form. Original admission form along with annexure attached by the petitioner was also produced which shows that the petitioner had not annexed copy of the GATE score card along with his admission form. The petitioner has rather alleged that the respondents have destroyed the document of the petitioner with a view to justify their stand of not considering the candidature of the petitioner.
17. What appears to be more probable is that that the petitioner did not fill his GATE percentage in the form because of his bonafide mistake and he also did not annex a copy of the GATE score card. Had the petitioner annexed the copy of the score card, a more probable sequence would have been that the petitioner would have rechecked the form and would have filled his percentage in the form also. The petitioner has not imputed any malafide in his petition against the respondent. If that be so, why the respondent will destroy petitioner's GATE score card, had it been annexed with his admission form? The respondents do not have any prejudice or bias against the petitioner and it is the lapse committed by him in not giving his GATE percentage either by writing in the admission form or annexing a copy of the GATE score card. The petitioner form was not processed because the GATE score was not available with the respondent at the time of processing the application form. Since no prejudice or bias has been alleged against the respondent, there was no reason for the respondent not to process the form of the petitioner, had he annexed a copy of the GATE score card with his application form.
18. The reliance of the petitioner on the Dolly Chhanda (supra) is also of no help. In that case, the candidate had produced a disability certificate issued to her father by the Army authorities, however, in view of the specific stipulation in information brochure, the same was not accepted and the candidate's father then obtained a fresh certificate which was produced by the candidate, however, no action was taken though there had been increase in the seat and the candidate was entitled for admission in that course. In these circumstances, the apex Court had held that if a person possesses eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose, no relaxation can be given unless it is specifically stipulated. If a candidate already had the eligibility certificate, such a candidate could be allowed to produce the Page 3095 necessary degree or mark sheets which are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation.
19. The case of the petitioner is, however, quite distinguishable. The admission had to be finalized on the basis of the percentage of the petitioner in the GATE examination. The petitioner neither filled his percentage of GATE examination in the admission form nor there was any other means available with the respondents to ascertain the performance of the petitioner in GATE so as to include his name in the list of successful candidates. What is apparent from the eligibility criteria is that the weightage of GATE percentage is 70% whereas the weightage of written entrance test conducted by respondent No. 1 was only 30%. If the score of the GATE examination was not available and the admission form was incomplete, the respondent was entitled not to process the form of the petitioner and decline admission.
20. Since the respondents had categorically stipulated in the admission form that the application form if incomplete and not giving the relevant necessary information for processing the form, it will not be processed. The action of the respondent in not processing the form of the petitioner, as GATE percentage of the petitioner was not available which was very material for preparing the list of selected candidates, was justified and can not be termed illegal or arbitrary in the facts and circumstances.
21. The respondent have also categorically stated that it is not only the form of the petitioner which has not been considered on account of incomplete information but there have been many other candidates whose applications have not been considered on account of giving incomplete information.
22. There cannot be a dispute that it is a matter for decision of the academic body and since the respondents have applied the rule in a bonafide manner to all the students equally it will not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the internal working of the respondents concerned especially regarding admission to higher education in the post graduate courses.
23. In Patna College v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman the Apex Court had held that the High Court should normally be very slow to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution as the matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision. It was held that if the regulation is capable of two constructions it would generally not be expedient for the Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by such authorities is less reasonable within the alternative construction which is canvassed by the petitioner before this Court. In this case, the candidate had not fulfillled the regulations as he had not attended the adequate number of practical and his practical record was also not satisfactory. If the shortage of attendance could be condoned, the candidate was eligible to appear in the examination. The apex Court had held that requirement of 75% attendance had to be construed after taking into consideration the tutorials and practicals disjunctively and not conjunctively and had led emphasis to the tutorials Page 3096 and practical work done by the candidate in addition to attending lectures. The relevant observation of the apex Court is as under:
It is hardly necessary to emphasise that in dealing with matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should normally be very slow to pass ex parte interim orders, because matters falling within the jurisdiction of the educational authorities should normally be left to their decision, and the High Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interests of justice. Even on the merits, we think we ought to point out that where the question involved is one of interpreting a regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions, and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by the said authorities on the relevant regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept. The limits of the High Courts jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari are well-recognised and it is, on the whole, desirable that the requirements prescribed by judicial decisions in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in dealing with such matters should be carefully borne in mind
24. In , Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow and Ors. there was a conflict in circular passed by the Government and the rules framed by the Medical Council of India. The government order contemplated admission to MD and MS courses purely on merit and on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate in the MBBS examination whereas MCI rules contemplated one year housemanship/diploma preferably in the same subject prior to admission to PG course. On challenge being made to the admission to the medical courses the provisional admission was given. In this context, it was held that whenever a writ petition is filed provisional admission could not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible. In order, however, to test this fact even a short notice may be given to explore as to what other side has to say and thereafter if the court is satisfied that there is strong prima facie case and the matter needs thorough examination, provisional admission may be given. The Supreme Court held:
The High Court could not have given a go bye to the rules framed by Admission Committee. It was a matter for decision of the academic body and since the academic bodies had applied the rules in a bonafide manner to all the students equally there was no justification whatsoever on the part of the High Court to interfere with internal working of an academic institution concerned with imparting higher education in the field of post graduate course in medicine Page 3097
25. Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union had challenged the eligibility of the students for admission to post graduate study who had done (10+2+2) course as arbitrary as the admission to post graduate study courses was confined only to graduates who had undergone (10+2+3) years course of study. The apex Court in , Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union v. Jawaharlal Nehru University and Anr. had observed that in academic matters, it is not proper to tinker with educational policies. It was thus held that the admission policy of Jawaharlal Nehru University granting admission to the graduates who had undergone (10+2+3 years) course of study cannot be termed arbitrary and had a perfectly rational basis and there is good reason and sufficient justification for the policy and consequently the writ petition was dismissed.
26. Nothing wrong can be imputed to the respondent in not granting admission to those candidates whose admission forms were not incomplete or deficient in any manner. It is not only the petitioner who has been denied but many other candidates have been denied admission because their admission form were not complete. Taking sympathetic view of the matter in the case of petitioner shall not be judicious to a number of students who have been declined admissions on the ground that their forms were incomplete and thus their forms also were not processed and they have not been granted admission. In , State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana, it was held by the Supreme Court that the benefit should be granted to even those persons who have not approached the Court as in admission matters yardstick is the academic excellence and not litigative persistence. The Apex Court had held:
42. The selection of these 30 students will not be confined to those who have moved this Court or the High Court by way of writ proceedings or appeal. The measure is academic excellence, not litigative persistence. It will be thrown open to the first 30, strictly according to merit measured by marks secured. The apportionment as between graduates and pre-degree students and the application of the communal reservation will apply to these 30 to be selected. The Selection Committee will make its decision on or before January 31, 1979. The Universities concerned will convey their approval to the Government for the necessary addition to the student strength in obedience to the direction of this Court on or before January 27, 1979
27. In Zaheena Jamal v. University of Delhi and Anr. 2002(65) DRJ 549 it was held that one wrong action or aberration on the part of the academic body would not confer any legal right in favor of a candidate to claim a similar relief. In this case a candidate was required to submit the Urdu qualification certificate for admission which was submitted only after the last date. The plea of the candidate that in case of another candidate admission was granted though the other candidate had also submitted the form after the last date was not entertained. In Bhawana Sharma (supra) Petitioner who was enrolled in the diploma course in Opthalmology gave an undertaking during admission that she will not apply for/accept admission to any course in the Faculty of Page 3098 Medical Sciences till the completion of the course. The terms and condition of the entrance test for PG course also debarred a candidate who was already pursuing any post doctoral/ post graduate/ diploma course. The petitioner, however, sought quashing of this condition which was declined. It was held that carving out an exception from the undertaking would undermine and defeat the very purpose of introducing the undertaking.
28. In view of the specific stipulation by the respondents on their admission form categorically on the top of the admission form that the application forms with incomplete information shall not be processed, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in not processing the form of the petitioner.
29. Consequently, the respondents are justified in not processing the application form of the petitioner for admission to M. Pharm course and there are no grounds to interfere with their decision. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled for the relief prayed and the writ petition is, thus, dismissed.