Karnataka High Court
Kshamaben Mahendrakumar Patel vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 3 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(2)KARLJ594, 2006 (2) AIR KAR R 593
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
ORDER N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioner herein has sought for a direction, directing the first respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences ('University' for short), to reconsider the grant of approval to the admission of the petitioner in the light of the representations vide Annexures-C and D by treating her study and passing the A.I.S.S.C. (10+2) Examination from Akhila Bharathiya Madhyamic Shikshana Parishad, Delhi, as equivalent to II Pre-University Course of Karnataka State. Further, she has sought to issue a consequential direction to permit her to appear in the first year BDS examination on her completion of course of study.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, she has studied and passed the examination conducted by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board Gandhinagar, in distinction and thereafter continued her Pre-University course and passed All India Senior Secondary School Examination for the academic year 2002-2003 in first class securing over 60% marks in science subjects. She being eligible and entitled to the study of professional course, applied and was admitted to first year BDS course in the second respondent-The Oxford Dental College ("College" for short) under the management quota. The second respondent-College has sent the list of students for approval of their admission including the petitioner herein to the first respondent-University. The first respondent-University has sent a communication to the second respondent-College stating that, the A.I.S.S.C. (10+2) qualifying Examination for Akhila Bharatiya Madhyamic Shikshana Parishad, Delhi, which the petitioner has passed is not recognised by the first respondent-University and the said institution is not a member of Association of Indian Universities (AIU) and therefore, petitioner is not eligible for approval of admission to the same and that she may be discharged. The further case of the petitioner is that, for the academic year 2002-03, the University has approved the admission of one other student who had studied the same qualifying examination and had accepted as equivalent to Pre-University Course of Karnataka State. In this connection, the college has also forwarded a consolidated representation dated 3rd August, 2004 vide Annexure-D to the University for approval of admission of the petitioner, on the ground that, one other student's admission under similar circumstances was approved by the University. Inspite of the said communication, the University has failed to approve the admission of the petitioner. Hence, in view of non-approval of the admission of the petitioner when the examinations are notified by the University for the first year BDS course, the petitioner having no other alternative, was constrained to approach this Court by this writ petition.
3. When this matter had come up for preliminary hearing on 17th August, 2004, this Court granted an interim order, directing the first respondent to accept the application form and fees etc., of the petitioner for the purpose of appearing in the first year BDS examination scheduled to be held in the month of September 2004. Further, she was also permitted to appear in the first year BDS Examination subject to the result of the writ petition. Having regard to this background, as stated supra, the petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate direction as stated above.
4. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri Naik, is that, inspite of sending clarification by way of consolidated representation by the second respondent-College vide Annexure-D, requesting to approve the admission of the petitioner, on the basis that, similar candidate who had passed A.I.S.S.C. from the same Parishad had been admitted and the said admission was approved by the same University, the University has not approved the admission of the petitioner. Further, he drew my attention to the relevant provisions of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and pointed out that, the case of the petitioner ought to have been placed before the Equivalence Committee, consisting of experts and scholars in the respective field, and that, the said Committee is the Competent Authority to decide as to the equivalence of the qualifying examination of A.I.S.S.C. passed by petitioner. He submitted that, the said Equivalence Committee has been constituted only for the purpose of taking decision with regard to equivalence on the basis of recognition made to the said course by several universities in the entire country, including some of the premiere institutions such as Birla Institute of Technology and Science Distance Learning Programmes Division (BITS), Pilani, Rajasthan etc. Therefore, he submitted that, appropriate direction may be issued to the University to place the matter before the Equivalence Committee and to take appropriate decision. Further, he vehemently submitted that, subject to the decision that may be taken by the Equivalence Committee, the result of the 1 year BDS course, the examination of which was taken up by petitioner by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 17th August, 2004, may be announced and that, petitioner undertakes that, she will not claim any equity or benefit from such announcement of results of the petitioner, however, of course, subject to approval of her admission to the said course.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for University, inter alia, contended and substantiated the decision taken by University for not approving the admission of the petitioner stating that, University has not recognised the course that has been studied by the petitioner and there is no error committed by University in disapproving the admission of petitioner. Further, he has stated in unequivocal terms in paragraph 2 of his objections statement that, it is a fact that, the University had approved the admission of similar student in the previous academic year, but the same was due to oversight, which, neither the second respondent-College nor the petitioner can take advantage of the same. He submitted that, the mistake committed by University in approving the admission of a similarly situated student as that of petitioner in the previous academic year, was by mere inadvertence and that, that same cannot be taken as a ground for approval of admission of petitioner and the said mistake cannot be allowed to continue or perusuate for the subsequent academic year. Further, after careful perusal and evaluation of the records available on the file of the University, learned Counsel appearing for University fairly submitted that, it is a fact that, the representation forwarded by the College vide Annexure-D has not been placed before the Equivalence Committee of the University.
6. Further, the learned Counsel appearing for second respondent submitted that, they have sent a communication dated 3rd August, 2004 vide Annexure-D bringing it to the notice of the University chat, many Universities and other reputed Universities throughout India have approved the recognition of 12th Class Examination conducted by All India Board of Secondary Education (Akhila Bharathiya Madhyamik Shikshana Parishad) and is equivalent to the other PUC, Higher Secondary, Intermediate Courses and is eligible to pursue Higher Education like BDS and other U.G. Courses. Further, he submitted that, the said representation given by College is pending consideration before the University.
7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. In the light of the submission of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for petitioner and fairly conceded by learned Counsel appearing for first respondent-University that, the communication dated 17th May, 2004 vide Annexure-C and the representation given by the College dated 3rd August, 2004 vide Annexure-D have not been placed before the Equivalence Committee of the first respondent-University. It can be seen that, only on the basis of further clarification from the other authorities, such as Association of Indian Universities (AIU), the University has come to the conclusion that, the 10+2 Programmes conducted by the Akhila Bharathiya Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, Delhi are not recognised. The University, being the statutory authority, is duty-bound to place the matter before the Equivalence Committee of the University and thereafter to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, after collecting necessary opinion from other universities and the Board. As a matter of fact, as stated above, the College has sent a Communication and also given a consolidated representation and made available several correspondences sent by other Universities treating the qualifying examination of the petitioner as equivalent to 10+2. Therefore, without going into further merits and demerits of the petitioner's case, to meet the ends of justice and in order to safeguard the interest of the University as well as the student, whose admission is yet to be approved by the University, I am of the considered view that, it would be just and proper to give appropriate direction to the University to place the matter before the Competent Authority i.e., the Equivalence Committee and thereafter to take appropriate decision in accordance with law with reference to the material made available by College.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner stands disposed of with a direction to first respondent-University to place the matter before the Equivalence Committee of the University including the representation/communication sent by the College vide Annexures-C and D and all other relevant material and take appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, liberty is reserved to the petitioner as well as the second respondent-College to furnish any additional material in support of their case by way of representation along with authenticated notification, recognised the said qualifying examination or any other authenticated document/circular/orders, issued by the Competent Authority, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In such case, University is directed to receive the same and place the matter before the Equivalence Committee within ten days from the date of receipt of such representation.
9. Further, the University is directed to announce the result of the petitioner in respect of first year BDS course conducted during September 2004, which would be subject to approval of admission of petitioner by first respondent-University.
10. In case, respondent 1-University disapproves the admission of the petitioner, it is made clear that, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefits or plead equity by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 17th August, 2004 and also the direction given in the instant case.
11. With these observations, the writ petition filed by petitioner stands disposed of.