Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandhya Singh vs Punjabi University, Patiala And Anr. on 20 December, 2001
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Ms. Sandhya Singh prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the order dated 24.11.2000 passed by the Punjabi University, Patiala, hereinafter referred to as the University, vide which the admission of the petitioner to the 5 years LL.B. Course has been cancelled. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be concisely stated. The petitioner passed her 10+2 examination from Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, hereinafter referring to as Education Council, by securing first division. As the petitioner was desirous of pursuing 5-years Law, Course, she intended to join Army Institute of Law hereinafter referred to as the Institute, which is located at Patiala. The application forms were invited by the said Institute and the last date for submission thereof was 31.3.2000. Written entrance lest was held on 25.5.2000. The petitioner secured 18th position in the merit list under the category of wards of Army Personnel. On 10.7.2000 petitioner was granted admission to the 5-years LL.B. Course in the Institute. The University on 24.11.2000 wrote to the Institute that the petitioner had done her 10+2 from a Board which had been de-recognised by the University and as such her admission should be cancelled. The University vide its letter dated 11.7.2000 addressed to all the principals of the colleges informing about derecognition of the said Board, On 27.11.2000 the Institute wrote to the University that the students who had done their 10+2 examination from the Board from which the petitioner had done 10+2 examination, were given admission in the year 1999-2000. However, vide letter dated 28.11.2000 the petitioner was informed about the cancellation of her admission to the Institute. The petitioner's father wrote a letter on 11.12.2000 attaching the verification certificate issued by the Education Council dated 7.12.2000 requesting therein that the petitioner be permitted to continue her course and the letter of cancellation be withdrawn. Having failed to redress her grievance, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. Upon notice, separate replies were filed on behalf of the respective respondents. The Institute filed a written statement that it received the letter of the University on 15.7.2000 wherein the information in regard to derecognition of the Education Council, from where the petitioner has done 10+2 examination, was given. By that time, the petitioner had already been admitted to the Course on 10.7.2000. It was stated on behalf of the Institute that it has no objection if the petitioner is admitted and permitted to continue her course.
3. However, in the written statement filed on behalf of the University, it was stated that the University had already taken a decision to de-recognise the 10+2 examination held by the Education Council from the academic session 2000-2001. It is only the eligible candidates who can be granted seats in the affiliated colleges. Upon verification of the certificate of the petitioner it was found that she had done her course from the said Education Council and was not eligible to take admission in the affiliated Colleges. The decision of the University was conveyed on 11.7.2000. As such according to the University, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
4. At the very outset, we may notice that the Institute had issued a brochure to clearly stating the terms and conditions regulating admission to the Course as well as eligibility for taking the entrance test. For submitting the application for taking the entrance test-2000, 31st of March, 2000 was the last date. In other words, the last date of eligibility of a candidate in terms of the brochure is to be determined on the last date of submission of application. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar Sant Longowal Institute, (1997-3)117 PLR 136 has specifically held that date of determining eligibility, is the last date of submission of applications for admission to educational courses unless the terms of the brochure specifically provided to the contrary. Reference can also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Shartna v. Chander Shekhar. JT 1997(4) Supreme Court 99, where the Court held that eligibility conditions are relatable to the last date of submission of applications.
5. The application of the present petitioner was submitted within time, accompanied by requisite documents. The petitioner was permitted to take the entrance test and was also given admission in the Institute on 10.7.2001. According to the Institute they received the information of de-recognising the 10+2 examination conducted by the Education Institute on 15.7.2000, the date before which the petitioner had already granted admission and the petitioner was pursuing her course. The petitioner had informed the University vide letter dated 11.12.2000 that she had already completed 1st semester of her course and was expected to take the examination to be held by the University.
6. It is no body's case before us that the petitioner is not covered or does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for wards of Army Personnel as provided under Clause 4.1. She had also annexed required certificates along with her application and had admittedly produced the original certificates in terms of Clause 3.2.1 of the brochure at the time of interview. It is after due scrutiny that she was granted admission by the Institute. If the letter dated 10.7.2000 was received by the Institute on 15.7.2000, probably no fault could be attributed to any party to the lis before this Court. But, to cancel the admission of the petitioner, particularly when she had already studied one semester in the said University, would not be just and fair. It will amount to wasting of two valuable years of her academic years of no fault of her. She had passed her 10+2 examination from a Government Board and had also attained the requisite merit in the entrance test.She has not made any misrepresentation to any authority at any relevant point of time. As such we find no justification on the part of the respondents to cancel her admission.
7. At this stage we may refer to a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Makkar v. Kurukshetra University, CWP No. 12098 of 2001, decided on 25.10.2001, where the Court, after considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under:-
"We have already noticed that the petitioner has not made any mis-representation to the respondents. He was given admission in the degree course as per the policy of the government. He has pursued his degree course and has also appeared in two semester examinations of that course. If his admission is cancelled at this stage now it will vest the petitioner with serious inevitable problems and two valuable years of his academic career would be wasted. He was not admitted to the course contrary to the terms of the brochure or policy of the State. In fact, the State in its wisdom varied the eligibility condition and specifically directed the College to grant admission to such students who had got compartment in their 10+2 examination. Thus, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner on any score whatsoever. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment titled Chairman, Central Council of Homeopathy v. Varinder Singh and Ors., J.T. 2000(10) S.C. 231 held as under:-
".... In other words, they have already completed the period meant for Diploma Course and are now studying in the extra months meant for Degree Course. The directions given by the High Court so far as allowing the students to complete the required number of years of study or hours of study for acquiring the degree and certificate, need not be interfered with. We also make it clear that the number of hours of study required for each subject for a Decree Course should also be completed."
Even earlier, in somewhat similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken a view and held that where there is no mis-representation by the student and the admission was made in conformity with the instructions, the students be permitted to complete their course. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 376 where the court held as under:-
"... Similarly, when the candidate was allowed to appear at the Part II Law Examination in May 1973, the University authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate."
Further in the case of Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Ors., A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 1075, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"In the instant case the candidate-appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his mark-sheet along with the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admission card for the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examination that the University raised the objection to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law course. The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the results of the appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course."
The reliance by the counsel for the petitioner again on the Division Bench judgment of this court in Iqbal Kaur's case (supra) is apt."
8. In the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and Ors., AIR 1989 Supreme Court 823, the Apex Court held that if a student is admitted even by mistake and had secured less than 60% marks, but the application was accepted after due scrutiny and student was not at fault, the order withholding the admission of the student was bad. Still in another case titled as Rajender Prasad Mathvr v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1448, where examination passed by the students from Rajasthan was not recognised as equivalent to the passing of the basic examination and students were declared ineligible for admission, the Apex Court held that determination of equivalence of examination fell within the domain of the University or Boards which are specialized bodies for this purpose, but also permitted the students, who were pursuing the course, to complete their academic courses. Reference can also be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 933 and Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE), 1990 v. Osiris Das, 1993(4} Recent Services Judgments 261.
9. It has been averred in the reply filed by the University that the certificate of 10+2 issued by the said Education Council was derecognised by the University on 10.7.2000 and letter to that effect was issued to the various Colleges on 11.7.2000. It is on these premises that admission of the petitioner has been cancelled which was admittedly granted on 10.7.2000 (last dale for submission of applications). However, on a closer scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties it is clear that on 11.7.2000 letter Annexure R-2/T was written to the various institutions. It was stated in the said letter that following recommendations have been approved by the vice chancellor in anticipation of the Academic Council that were made by the committee constituted by him and which met on 20.4.2000. Following was one of the recommendations :-
"a) No student should be admitted in University teaching department or any affiliated college for the next class, on the basis of the lower examination passed from Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna w.e.f the academic year 2000-2001."
10. It is not disputed before us that question of equivalence can be determined only by the syndicate upon recommendation of the Academic Council of the University. No provision was brought to our notice where the Vice Chancellor of the University is vested with the power of determining the question of equivalence, recognition or de-recognition of a course. At best, the Vice Chancellor can exercise his emergency powers subject to approval of a competent authority, In the present case, there existed no emergency whatsoever and the question was of serious gravity and consequence. The Committee recommended the matter on 20,4.2000 and no action was taken till 10.7.2000 admittedly. Then again, the matter was put up before the syndicate and then before the Academic Council on 24.10.2000, As such the derecognition of the said 10+2 certificate would take effect from 24.10.2000.
11. In the case of Kurukshetra University v. Jyoti Sharma, JT 1998(6) Supreme Court 475, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in somewhat similar circumstances held that there was no occasion for the Vice Chancellor to exercise his emergency powers in regard to method of admissions which squarely falls in the jurisdiction of the standing committee, constituted under the Calendar of that University, in the present case no emergency circumstances existed. Exercise of emergency power pre-supposes exists on emergent circumstances. Absence of requisite circumstances is bound to have adverse effect on the decision so made. Thus, we are unable to accept the view that the derecognition by the University takes effect on 11.7.2000, though as stated by the Institute, even this intimation was received by them subsequent to the grant of admission to the petitioner.
12. Appropriately, reference can be made to another settled principle of that such acts of de-recognition or conditions relating to bar to eligibility clause can be given effect to prospectively alone. The de-recognition of the certificate of 10+2 examination issued by the Education Council could only be given effect to after it was so approved by the competent authority i.e. the Syndicate of the University, upon recognition of the Academic Council. The Standing Committee of the Academic Council in its meeting dated 11.10.2000 in Clause 4.1 had granted approval to the de-recognition of a qualification, which was duly recognised by the University earlier. Thus, under no circumstances the de-recognition can be given effect to prior to the date of decision of the Academic Council. The acts must be done in the manner and by the authority prescribed under the rules and statutes governing the business of the University. No provision was brought to our notice under which even the Standing Committee of the Academic Council can attach finality to such a decision. These all were the steps taken by the authorities for a final decision, which was ultimately taken by the Syndicate of the University on 24.10.2000. The obvious consequence thereof would be that all the students who got admission prior thereto are entitled to continue the course, as they were fully eligible on the date of entrance test, date of admission and their qualification of 10+2 was duly recognised by the University till that date. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2027, where it was held as under: -
"We are of the view that since at the time when the petitioners joined the course, it was recognised by the Govt. of Haryana and it was on the basis of this recognition that the petitioners joined the course, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognized, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course it was derecognised by the State Govt. on 9th January, 1985."
"..Of course, if any person has joined the certificate course after 9th January, 1985 he would not be entitled to the benefit of this order and any certificate obtained by him from the said Institute would be of no avail.There will be no order as to costs of the appeal."
In this regard, reference can also be made to the case of Neelam Kumari v. State of Punjab, (1993-1) 108 PLR 117( F.B.) where a Full Bench of this Court while following the above principles of law enunciated in the case of Suresh Pat (supra), held as under:-
"The name of this institution is also mentioned in the certificate issued by the Comptroller of Examination, Department of Industrial Training, Haryana. In view of the instructions Annexure P/16, this Certificate of training taken in Haryana stood recognised by the State of Punjab. When the petitioner completed this course and applied for job, such certificates were recognised by the State of Punjab and if subsequently the State of Punjab decided to de-recognise such certificate, the same would be prospectively and will not apply retrospectively."
13. The above reasoning in the light of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred above, leads to an inevitable conclusion that the cancel lation of admission of the petitioner by the respondents is not sustainable in law, keep ing in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, we allow this pe tition and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue her 5 years LL.B. Course in the Institute. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.