Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashwani Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT APPEAL No. 967 of 2011
ASHWANI KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Sr. Advocate with Ms. Warija Ghildiyal -
Advocate for the appellant.
Dr. S.S. Chouhan - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1 / State.
Shri Vibudhendra Mishra - Advocate for the respondent No.2, 3 and 4.
..........................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
(Reserved on : 13.02.2025) (Pronounced on : 21.02.2025) Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain.
This writ appeal has been field challenging the order dated 19.07.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.939/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has repelled challenge to order dated 06.11.2008 (Annexure P-
11) passed by the Executive Council of the respondent No.2-University whereby the said University has cancelled the examination of Master of Arts (Geography) of both years i.e. previous and final of the petitioner so also Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 21-02-2025 3:05:41 PM 2 consequential degree of the petitioner which is obtained as regular student in the year 1995.
2. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner before the writ Court was that the petitioner had obtained the degree of MA (Geography) from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (UP) in the year 1987 in second division but he again took admission in the same subject as regular student in the respondent No.2 i.e. Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa (M.P.) as regular student in the year 1993 and obtained degree in the year 1995. Therefore, the admission and consequential degree of the petitioner was found to be contrary to clause 2 of Ordinance 16 of the University and accordingly, the University cancelled the same.
3. The facts of the case are not in dispute, rather all the facts are admitted. The petitioner having earlier obtained a degree from Bundelkhand University in the year 1987 and thereafter having obtained same degree from APS University, Rewa in the year 1995 are not in dispute. The interpretation of Ordinance 16 and 70 is involved in the matter and it is also undisputed that consequential to the degree of the petitioner having been cancelled by the University, the employment of the petitioner has been terminated by his employer i.e. Remote Sensing Applications Centre, Uttar Pradesh. The issue of termination of services has already been agitated by the writ petitioner/appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Service Bench case No. 7153/2017 and therefore, the present matter before this Court is concerned only with the cancellation of examination and withdrawal of Degree of M.A. in Geography.
4. It is contended by learned senior counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that none of the Ordinances of respondent No.2-University framed under the M.P. Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 so also none of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 21-02-2025 3:05:41 PM 3 regulations framed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) barred obtaining same degree subsequently from another university and therefore, the rejection of the petition by the writ Court deserves to be set aside and the writ appeal may be allowed by setting aside cancellation of admission and Degree.
5. Per contra, the prayer is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.2-University by placing reliance on Clause 2.5 of UGC (Minimum Standards of Instruction for Grant of Master's Degree Through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 (for short, "Regulations 2003") wherein parameters have been laid down to admit certain students in the second year of Master's Degree programme and therefore, admission of the petitioner/appellant in course of MA (Geography) in respondent No.2 - APS University Rewa (MP) is argued to be illegal and thus, stated to be rightly cancelled by the University. Further reliance is placed on paragraph 47 of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2005) 5 SCC 420 wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that one of the important functions to be performed by the UGC is coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education so that uniformity is maintained in the level of teaching and examinations and award of degrees by various universities.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, the facts are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the legality of the petitioner/appellant subsequently obtaining degree of M.A. (Geography) from respondent No.2 i.e. APS University, Rewa in the year 1995 after having obtained same degree from Bundelkhand University Jhansi (U.P.) in the year 1987. The learned single Judge had held that there is no provision under the Ordinance 16 and the only enabling provision Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 21-02-2025 3:05:41 PM 4 would be under Ordinance 70 and the admission of the petitioner in the same course seems to be impermissible in view of Ordinance 70 as well as Ordinance 16. The respondent No.2 defended its case before the learned Single Judge on the anvil of Ordinance 16 and the cancellation order is stated to be based on Clause 16 (2) of Ordinance 16. The relevant portion of the said Ordinance 16 is as under:-
"2. A candidate who, after taking his Bachelor's Degree of the Vishwavidyalaya or any Statutory University in India, has completed a regular course of study in a college affiliated to the Vishwavidyalaya or Vishwavidyalaya Teaching Department in the subject in which he offers himself for examination for one academic year, shall be admitted to the Previous Examination for the Degree of Masters of Arts.
3. A candidate who, after passing the M.A. Previous examination of the Vishwavidyalaya, has completed a regular course of study for one academic year in a Teaching Department of the Vishwavidyalaya, shall be admitted to the Final examination for the degree of Master of Arts in the subject in which he has passed the previous examination.
4. A candidate who has passed the Previous examination for the Degree of Master of Arts of another University may also be admitted to the Final Examination for the degree of Master of Arts after obtaining necessary permission from the Kulpati provided that he had offered for his Previous examination a course of study of an equivalent standard with almost identical syllabus as is required for the Previous examination of this Vishwavidyalaya and has attended a regular course of study for one academic year in a college affiliated to the Vishwavidyalaya or a Teaching Department of the Vishwavidyalaya.
5. **** **** ****
6. **** **** ****
7. A candidate who has passed the M.A. examination of the Vishwavidyalaya in any subject, shall be allowed to present himself for M.A. examination in any one or more of the optional Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 21-02-2025 3:05:41 PM 5 papers in that subject not taken by him at the said examination and if successful will be given a certificate to that effect.
8. As per clause 16(2) aforesaid, a candidate after having B.A. degree from any statutory university in India can get admitted to previous year examination of degree of Master of Arts. As per Clause (3) aforesaid, a candidate having passed M.A. (Previous) examination of the university shall be admitted to the final year examination. As per Clause (4) a candidate having passed previous year examination of M.A. degree of any other university may be admitted to final year examination of M.A. Degree after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor provided that his MA previous examination was in a course of equivalent standard with almost identical syllabus.
9. Further, as per Clause (7) a candidate who has passed M.A. examination of University in any subject can present himself for M.A. examination in one or more optional papers in that subject if not taken by him and if successful he will be given certificate to that effect. This clause (7) is not relevant for the purpose of present case though it was vehemently argued by counsel for the respondent No.2. However, Clause (7) only enables a candidate who has attempted some of the optional papers of a course and if he wants to qualify the other optional papers which he had left out by not exercising option in the main examination then subsequently he can also get qualified in those left out optional papers which were earlier not opted by him.
10. Even as per Clause (2), (3) and (4) there is nothing that bars a candidate having passed MA examination in same subject from another University to take examination in M.A. course in respondent No.2-
University from M.A. (Previous). Clause (4) of Ordinance 16 is a provision Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 21-02-2025 3:05:41 PM 6 by which a candidate can directly get admitted to final year examination of M.A. course if he has passed previous year examination from another university. It is not a case of the petitioner having got admission in final year examination directly but indeed he had taken admission in previous year examination and he has completed the entire degree afresh from respondent No.2-University for which the Ordinances are totally silent and there is no bar to that effect in the Ordinance. True it is that the University could have placed such a bar but from the reading of entire Ordinance No.16, we could not gather any such bar either express or implicit in the language of Ordinance 16.
11. The counsel for respondent No.2 had also referred to Ordinance 70 to submit that such an admission and examination of the petitioner in MA (Geography) course was not as per law. Ordinance 70 is not a provision for admission but it is a provision for improvement of division. There cannot be any quarrel to the fact that improvement of division can be taken only from the same university and improvement of division will be taken in those papers in which the candidate wants improvement of division. Here the petitioner could have obtained improvement of division only from the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi by appearing only in those papers in which he was seeking improvement. However, he took a greater risk and did a greater labour by taking fresh admission in respondent No.2-university and completing the entire course from previous year onwards upto final year. Therefore, the provisions of Ordinance 70 relating to improvement of division are not attracted in the present case.
12. So far as the reliance on the UGC regulations of 2003 so also judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra) is concerned, the regulatory control of UGC on the universities in the country Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 21-02-2025 3:05:41 PM 7 is not at all in dispute. Clause 2.5 of the Regulations of 2003 which was heavily relied upon reads as under:-
"2.5 Depending upon the academic and physical facilities available in the institutions, the university may allow an institution to admit a certain number of students directly to the second year of a Master's degree programme, if the student has either (a) successfully completed the first year of the same programme in another institution, or (b) already successfully completed a Master's degree programme and is desirous of and academically capable of pursuing another Master's degree programme in an allied subject."
13. The said clause 2.5 relates to admission of a candidate having completed previous year examination of Master's degree programme in main subject to final year examination of Master's degree programme in allied subject of the main subject. Therefore, by way of this Clause 2.5 relied on by respondent No.2, a candidate, for example, having completed M.Sc. Degree in physics may seek admission in final year in Applied Physics or a candidate having completed M.Sc. degree in Chemistry may seek admission to final year in Medicinal Chemistry or Applied Chemistry. The present case is not a case of allied subjects. The petitioner has attained two degrees in the same main subject of M.A. (Geography) from two different universities. Therefore the reliance placed on clause 2.5, as noted above, is utterly misplaced and misconceived.
14. The present case is not a case of simultaneous prosecuting two degree courses from two parallel universities. If that was the case then the issues like admission in which of the two universities was lawful would have cropped up. Another issue would have cropped up whether two parallel courses can be undertaken at the same time. However, in the present case two degrees from two different universities have been taken with a gap of many years.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 21-02-2025 3:05:41 PM 815. The counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2016) wherein the Supreme Court had upheld the examination of a candidate in two examinations simultaneously for the same year by interpreting various provisions of regulations of Board of Secondary Education. However, in the present case, the courses are not simultaneous but the degrees have been taken many years apart. Therefore, the case of the present appellant is on a far better footing that the case of Kuldeep Kumar Pathak (supra).
16. As no prohibitory provision could be pointed out either from the Ordinance 16 or Ordinance 70, nor any other Ordinance was placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, we are unable to hold that the admission, consequential examination and degree of M.A. (Geography) obtained by the appellant/writ petitioner from respondent No.2- University in the year 1995 is bad in law from any angle. The aforesaid facts have been overlooked by the Writ Court in impugned order.
17. Accordingly, we hereby set-aside the said order, consequently, the order impugned in the writ petition (Annexure P-11) passed by the Executive Council of the University in cancelling the examination and degree of appellant of the course of M.A. (Geography) awarded by the respondent No.2-University is set aside. The degree obtained by the appellant in M.A. (Geography) in the year 1995 from the respondent No.2 University stands restored. The writ appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
nks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 21-02-2025
3:05:41 PM