Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

WRITTEN STATEMENTS:

6. The defendants filed separate written statements. The defendant No. 2 averred that the plaintiff had passed B.Ed. (Bal Vikas) and B.Ed. (Bridge Course) from Rajasthan Vidya Peeth but he had not stated such facts particularly at SI. No. 1 of Para 9 of the admission form; and it was clearly stated in the instructions on the back side of the form that the admission would be treated as confirmed only after approval from the University and, therefore, the admission was only provisional. It was asserted that even in the list of attested copies filed along with the form, the plaintiff stated only about B.Ed., and that he had craftily filled in his form and attempted to somehow get the M.Ed. Degree. Upon inquiry, it was found that the plaintiff was not B.Ed, but he had only passed B.Ed. (Bridge Course) from Rajasthan Vidya Peeth and after thorough consideration of the entire matter the defendant No.l had rightly issued information of cancellation of the admission; entire delay was caused because the plaintiff had concealed the facts in the enrolment form also and, therefore, his enrolment fees was got deposited and he was permitted to appear in the examination but later on it was found that he was not B.Ed, but had done B.Ed. (Bal Vikas and Bridge Course). In the additional plea, it was also suggested that the father of the plaintiff was a lecturer in the Teachers Education College of Rajasthan Vidya Peeth that was also having the M.Ed, course, and the plaintiff could have done his M.Ed, from Rajasthan Vidya Peeth but he wanted to conceal the fact of Bridge Course and to get his M.Ed, and, therefore, cleverly filled up the form; and upon appropriate proceedings, his M.Ed. admission was- rightly cancelled because B.Ed. (Bridge Course) was not equivalent to B.Ed. nor the same was recognised by the University.

7. The defendant No. I, the appellant University, submitted in its written statement that it had granted equivalence only to the extent that its B.Ed, and M.Ed. were equivalent respectively to B.Ed, and M.Ed, degrees of Rajasthan Vidya Peeth; and the so called B.Ed. (Bal Vikas) and B.Ed, (Bridge Course) was not recognised as equivalent to B.Ed, and, therefore, the defendant No. 2 College ought not to have granted admission to the plaintiff nor he could have been enrolled with the University; that the necessary certificates and degree are not enclosed with the examination form and, therefore, in routine, treating the plaintiff to be having prescribed qualification, was issued roll number for M.Ed. Examination. His taking part in the examination was not denied but it was asserted that when it came to the notice of the University that the plaintiff was not carrying the requisite B.Ed. Degree; and B.Ed. (Bal Vikas) and B.Ed. (Bridge Course) of Rajasthan Vidya Peeth having not been recognised as equivalent to the B.Ed, his result was withheld and later on his admission was cancelled and the principles of promissory estoppel do not apply.

In Paper Marked.

_________________________________________________________________________

22. It is not is dispute that this marks sheet was attached by the plaintiff with his admission form and even a glance thereat is sufficient to find that the plaintiff has done B.Ed. (Bal Vikas and Bridge Course) and respective marks in Bal Vikas and Bridge Course have been distinctly enumerated. The allegation of concealment of facts as levelled against the plaintiff does not appear to be justified. On a mere look at the marks-sheet, the particulars of the plaintiff's B.Ed, degree could be found out; and in fact, the defendants have not only looked at, but have even scrutinised this marks sheet as shall be evident hereafter.

41. It may also be pointed out that during course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the parties admitted the fact that this very degree of the Rajasthan Vidya Peeth has not only been recognised by the Government of Rajasthan, even the appellant University has also taken decision to recognise the same degree equivalent to the corresponding B.Ed. Examination of the appellant University on the condition of the candidate completing the proposed Bridge Course in continuation of B.Ed. (Bal Vikas) in the same session and an entrance examination on the lines of P.T.E.T. be introduced. The fact remains that the degree obtained by the plaintiff had been of B.Ed, after having completed his B.Ed. (Bal Vikas) and so also B.Ed. (Bridge Course) and it was not the degree of B.Ed. (Bal Vikas) alone as sought to be suggested at some places. In any event, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of fundamental lack of qualification for which this candidate, i.e. the plaintiff, could not have taken admission in M.Ed. Course at all.