Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
The Vidhyarthi Sanrakshan Samiti vs University Of Jodhpur And Anr. on 20 August, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990(2)WLN329
JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. The Vidhyarthi Sanrskshan Samiti Jodhpur has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Seeking relief against the University of Jodhpur that the students being the last batch under the old course having passed the Senior Higher Secondary Examination 1990, may be allowed admission in second year of three year degree old course in the year 1990-91. The petitioner samiti's case is that the students who have passed the Senior Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1990 were students of Higher Secondary, Secondary and 9th class in the Sessions 1988-89, 1987-88 and 1986-87 respectively. The students have thus studies under the old course. Having undertaken the old course and cleared the Senior Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1989-90, they are entitled to get admission in second year of three-year degree old course in the year 1990-91. Such students have been denied admission in the second year old course. According to the petitioner samiti, the students who had passed senior higher secondary examination in the year 1988-89, were given admission in second year old course, the batch of students who have cleared senior higher secondary examination in the year 1989-90 cannot be discriminated and they stand on the same footing so they are entitled to be given admission in the second year old course. Besides that the petitioner's case further is that 10 + 2+3 scheme introduced by the university cannot have any retrospective effect so as to effect the rights of the students who have undertaken old course right from 9th class. It is on this basis that this writ petition is founded. It is also one of the attentions of the petitioner that the new scheme could not be made applicable to the students without giving them an opportunity of hearing and the introduction of the new scheme is violative of the principles of natural justice.
2. The case of the university is that 10+2+3 scheme has been introduced being the national education scheme. It has already been introduced throughout the country and introduction of this new scheme necessary amendments have been made and transitory provisions have also been enacted. The new scheme was introduced by the university from the year 1988-89. The scheme has a prospective operation and not retrospective operation and besides that no discrimination is in any way caused to the batch of students who have apppeared in the Senior Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1989-90. In the return to the writ petition reference have been made to the provisions of the ordinances in pursuance of which new scheme has been introduced and how and in what manner transitory provisions have been enacted so as to facilitate the change over from the old course to the new course. We would be referring to the relevant provisions while considering the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether the scheme introduced is retrospective in effect. We may state here that new scheme has been introduced by the University of Jodhpur, 1st year T.D.C. (old) has been abolished from the sessions 1989-90, second year T.D.C. (old) has been abolished from the session 1990-91 and third year T.D.C. (old) has been abolished from the session 1991-92 and how transition would come into effect, has also been provided during all these sessions.
3. Before referring to the contentions advanced before us it would be appropriate to look into notification Ex. 1 dated 9.8.1989 issued Under Section 24(1) on Jodhpur University Act, 1962 by the chancellor. It is by this notification that ordinances have been amended. We reproduce the relevant new ordnances, which have been introduced by the aforesaid notification.
4. Amended ordinances 373, 33, 33-A, 35 and 36-B(1) read as under:
Order 373 To add. New Ordinance 373
...
Whereas to implement the National Education Policy the University of Jodhpur has Introduced the T.D.C. (New Course) from the academic Session 1989-90, the following course shall be demed to be quivalent to courses noted against each other:
OLD COURSE NEW COURSE
1. Second Year (TDC) First Year (TDC)
(Old Course) (New Course)
2. Third Year (TDC) Second Year (TDC)
(Old Course) (New Course)
That the University will abolish First Year TDC, Second Year TDC and Third Year TDC (Old Course) from the sessions 1989-90,90-91,91-92 respective Provided, that the failures of First Year TDC (Old Course) examination shall be eligible to appear as ex-student. There shall, however, be no examination of First Year TDC Arts, Science and Commerce (Old Course) after the year 1991. The failures of Second Year TDC (Old Course) and Third Year TDC (Old Course) examination shall be eligible to appear at the First Year TDC (New Course) or llnd Year TDC (New Course) examination respectively.
Order 33 Tn amends the existing Ordinance 33.
No student shall be eligible for admission, to the course of study for the First Year Examination (Old Course) unless he/she has passed the pre-university Examination of this University or the Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, or its equivalent examination conducted by Universities or Boards in India or abroad recognized by this University and obtained in the qualifying examination the minimum percentage of markes as prescribed by the University from time to time:
Provided further that no candidates shall be admitted In the First Year Examination of Three Year Degree Course (Old Course) from the Academics Session 1989-90.
Order 33-A Order 33-A
1. For the purposes of these Ordinances Faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce means Faculties of Arts, Education and Social Science; Science; and Commerce & Management studies respectively.
2. "New Course" means the course introduced for the first time to Implement the 1Q+2+3 Scheme In various classes In Faculties of Arts, Science and Commerce.
3. "Old Course" means the existing course prior to the Introduction of "New Course".
Order 35 To amends Order 33.
Order 36. No student shall be eligible for admission to the Course of Study for Part II of Degree Course (Old Course) unless he/she has passed;
Part I Examination or the T.D.C. Part II Examination of this University.
OR I Year T.D.C. (Old Course) of University of Rajasthan.
OR First Year TDC Examination from any recognized University.
OR Intermediate Examination from any recognized University Board with General English and/or Genera Hindi as compulsory subjects.
The candidates who have passed the Intermediate Public Examination of the Board of intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad be admitted to first Year T.D.C. class Note: 1. Candidates who have passed Junior Diploma Course in Secretarial & Business Training Part II shall be eligible for admission to Part II of the degree course in the Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Commerce.
2. Those candidates who have passed I Year T.D.C. or equivalent examination Intermediate examination from any recognized University/Board without General English and or General Hindi as compulsory subjects may be admitted to the II Year subject to the condition that they will have to clear Hindi and or English compulsory subject (s) of I Year T.D.C. before they are promoted to II Year class of the three Year Degree Course:
Provided that no candidate shall be admitted to the llhd Tear Examination of the Three Year Degree Course (Old Course) from the Academic Session 1990-91.
Order 36-B.(1) No student shall be eligible for admission to the course of study for the First Year Examination of Faculty of Arts, Science or Commerce (New Course) unless he/she has passed the First Year Examination (Old Course) of this University of 10 + 2 or Senior Higher Secondary or Intermediate Examination from any recognized University or Board or equivalent examination conducted by a University or Board in India or Board, recognized by this University and has obtained in the qualifying examination the minimum percentage of marks as prescribed by the University from time to time:
Provided that such of the students who are eligible to seek admission in First Year of New Course the Hobe given an option to seek admission in either First Year (New Course) or second year of Old Course during the Academic Session 1989-90 only.
5. Our attention has also been invited to the Uniform Admission Rules Ex. 2 in which last Para of Clause 2 reads as under:
Candidates under the 10+2 pattern passing a Public Examination at the end of the 12th standard be deemed eligible for admission to the Second Year of the Three Year Degree Pass Course in terms of Ordinance 35.
6. In the light of the above provisions we have to consider the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is true that the batch of the students who have appeared in the Senior Higher Secondary Examination 1989-90 understood studies from 9th Class from the Session 1986-87 and they did appear in three board's examinations, the Secondary Examination, the Higher Secondary Examination and the Senior Higher Secondary Examination. As a matter of fact Old Course was up to Higher Secondary Examination. There was no Senior Higher Secondary Examination but in introduction of 10+2 + 3 Scheme Senior Higher Secondary Examination was added after Higher Secondary Examination by the Board, it is in this way that students passed 10 + 2 stage while undertaking 12 Years course up to Senior Higher Secondary Examination. The question is as to whether the students who took admission in the 9th Class in the Session 1986-87 are entitled to be given admission in the Second Year T.D.C. (Old) by the University. Our answer to this question would be in the negative as no such right accrues to the student who has taken admission in the 9th Class from the Session 1986-87. Why, we have answered the question in the negative, can be considered from the introduction of the amended Ordinances by the University, and further we would like to make it clear that the study up to the Secondary, Higher Secondary or Senior Higher Secondary Examination is by an independent body i.e. by the Board of Secondary Education and thereafter the education is in the hands of the University, another independent autonomous body. They are two independent bodies. The University being an independent autonomous body is free to prescribe its own course of study, Apart from that it would appear that sufficient care has been taken by the University for the introduction of 10 + 2 + 3 Scheme as University has framed transitory provisions to switch over to the Three Year Degree New Course.
7. A perusal of ordinance 373 would reveal that in order to implement 'national education policy', Three Year Degree Course (New Course) has been introduced from the academic' session 1989-90 and for that equivalence of courses has been provided, Second Year T.D.C. would be equal to First Year T.D.C. and Third Year T.D.C. would be equal to Second Year T.D.C. and it is provided that University will abolish First Year T.D.C. from the Session 1989-90 and Second Year T.P.G from 1990-91 and Third Year T.D.C. from 1991-92. In subsequent Ordinances proviso has been added. Reference here may be made to the Ordinance 33, Ordinance 35 and Ordinance 36-B. In Ordinance 33, it is clearly provided in the revise that no candidate shall be admitted in the First Year Examination of Three Degree Course (Old) from the Academic Session 1989-90. In Ordinance 35 to the main provision, a proviso has been added that no candidate. shall be admitted to the Second Year Examination of the Three Year Degree Course (Old) from the Academic Session 1990-91 and Under Ordinance 36-B clause (1) a further proviso has been added which provides that such of the student who are eligible to such admission in the First Year of New Course shall be given an option to seek admission in either First Year (New Course) or Second Year of Old Course during the Academic Session 1989-90 only. It would appear from this provision that option was available for the Academic Session 1989-90 and for the year 1990-91 no option was available to the students in view of the clear prohibition that no candidate would be admitted to the Second Year Examination of Three Year Degree Course (Old) from the Academic Session 1990-91. Having regard to the above provisions it would appear that provisions cannot be said to have any retrospective operation as they have been made applicable from the coming Sessions.
8. +In the Uniform Admission Rules what is contemplated is not in any way different from what is contemplated in the Ordinance referred to above. Candidates under the 10 + 2 pattern passing a public examination at the end of the 12th standard be deemed eligible for admission to Second Year of the Three Year Degree Course in terms of Ordinance 35. Thus, it would appear that this particular provision under the Uniform Rules has reference to Ordinance 35 and in terms of Ordinance 35 the matter of admission will be governed. Amended Ordinance 35 make it clear that Second Year Examination of Three Year Degree Course Old would stand abolished from the Sessions 1990-91.
9. The contention based on discrimination also appears to us to be misconceived. Students up to the Session 1988-89 have been treated differently from the students who have passed the Senior Higner Secondary Examination in the Year 1989-90, as from a particular year as provided in the Ordinance the students are required to be dealt with differently on that basis. Question of discrimination does not arise because this situation has arisan on account of introduction of 10+2+3 Scheme.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner with all his vehemence and emphasis at his command relied on a Full Bench decimion of this Court in Virendra Kapur v. University of Jodhpur AIR 1964 Raj. 161. This decision has come up for consideration before this Court in earlier Division Bench decisions of this Court Instead of dealing with the decision Elaborately, we think it sufficient to say that the aforesaid Full Bench decision and its ratio has no application to the present case. That was a case of a student who had undertaken examination under the old regulation 38 which provided for keeping terms. That position stood changed by introduction of supplementary examination by the vice chancellor, while considering that case, it was held by this court that the amended regulation framed by the vice chancellor has a prospective operation and a student if entitled to keep terms under the old regulation and introduction of new regulation would not take away the rights of student who has taken examination under the old regulation and it was also held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. In the present case, the situation is quite different. As considered above in our opinion the Scheme introduced by the University is a Scheme having prospective operation and not retrospective operation and besides that as already considered above University being an independent body, is free to make provision for its own courses of study and no such right has accrued to the petitioners who have passed Senior Higher Secondary Examination in the Year 1989-90 to claim admission in the Second Year Three Year Dgree Course (Old).
11. We may also observe here that the matter can be examined in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab University v. Subhash Chandra AIR 1984 SC 1415. Their lordships considered the question that "the regulation cannot be said to have retrospective operation merely because though introduced in 1970, it was applied to the candidate, who appeared for the final examination in 1974 after he had joined he course earlier in 1965. No promise was made or could be deemed to have been made to him at the time of his admission in 1965 that there will be no alteration of the Rule or Regulation in regard to the percentage of marks required for passing any examination or award of grace marks require and that the Rules relating thereto which were in force at the time of his admission, would continue to be applied to him until he finished the whole course." It was a case of undertaking examination conducted by the University and not the case of admission in the University on the basis of Secondary Examination conducted by another independent body like Board of Secondary Examination. Judging in the light of this Supreme Court decision, if the present matter is viewed no right whatsoever has in any way accrued or affected, the petitioner students have to undertake New course of study as framed by the university under the ordinance promulgated by the university.
12. We may also usefully refer to two more decisions of this Court which are relevant and having bearing oh the questions which have arisen in the present case. One is Mahesh Heenmandani v. State of Raj. RLR 1989 (1)286 and the other is Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Jaipur v. State of Raj. RLR 1988 (1)819.
13. In Mahesh Heeranandani's case, there was question of dmission to post graduate course in medicel science and new ordinance 278 Ewas made applicable, The aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court and the Punjab University case and other case law was doult with and it was held that the new Ordinance 278 Ewill apply to all admissions which are to be made after 25.3.89 and the petitioner has no right of consideration of his application as contended by him in accordance with old ordinance and for that part II of Ordinance 278 E cannot be prosed into service by the petitioners.
14. Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Pariahad's case (supra) was also a case of introduction of new scheme 10+2+3 by the University of Raj. The new scheme was introduced from the session 1988-89. It ws held that seheme is not bad on the ground that it prejudicially effects the students who joined higher secondary course prior to the introduction of said scheme. This case, in our opinion, applies with all force to the present case and the decision in that is also based on Punjab University case (supra).
15. We may also refer to another decision of the Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union v. Jawaharlal Nehru University AIR 1985 SC 587 That was a case where students were seeking admission who have cleared 10+2+3 scheme. The entrance examination by the Jawaharlal University was confined to graduates who have undergone 10+2+3 years course of study. Their lordships held that the admission policy of university is in no manner arbitrary but has a perfectly rational basis. There is good reason and sufficient justification for the policy. It was also observed that it is not for this court to venture to pronounce upon question so purely academic in nature, It may be stated that this case was a case based on admission policy framed by Jawaharlal University whereas in the present case the question of admission is based on the amended ordinance having the force of law.
16. Coming to the contention of Violation of principles of natural justice we are constrained to observe that it is really strange that such a contention had been advanced. Legislative power has been exercised in amending the ordinances for introducing the new course of study based on new education policy. No one can claim any observance of principles of natural justice particular opportunity of hearing before undertaking of any law taking measure by any legislative authority delegated or otherwise. It was no necessary for the Chancellor to give any opportunity of hearing to the students who had passed Senior Higher Secondary Examination in the session 1989.00 before amending the ordinance and introducing the new scheme.
17. No other point is pressed before us for our considerations.
18. In the result this writ petition has no force so it is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.