Allahabad High Court
Vishwendra Pratap Singh vs G.B. Technical University And ... on 8 December, 2011
Bench: Syed Rafat Alam, Chief Justice, Ran Vijai Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2363 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vishwendra Pratap Singh
Respondent :- G.B. Technical University And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Hemant Kumar,J.J. Munir
Respondent Counsel :- Neeraj Tiwari
Hon'ble Syed Rafat Alam,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.
This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2011 dismissing the petitioner-appellant's Writ Petition No. 67196 of 2011, cancelling his admission in B.Tech. Part 1 for the session 2011-2012. It appears that the petitioner-appellant was given admission after counseling, though he was not eligible at the relevant time to appear in the admission test, for the reason that, he was not having the required minimum marks of 50% at Intermediate level in Physics, Chemistry and Maths, as had been fixed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE, in short) and the State Government.
However, before the admission could be finalized, a corrigendum was also published by the University requiring the minimum qualifying marks at the Intermediate level as 50%, therefore, only those who were having 50% marks at Intermediate level could be able to appear for the admission test and secure admission. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the AICTE, subsequently since reduced the requirement of 50% minimum marks at Intermediate level to 45% marks, therefore, the appellant, since had secured 49% marks, ought to have been allowed to continue the course in question.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the considerable number of classes have already been held, and further, the examination of the first semester has also commenced from 1st December, 2011, therefore at this stage, no relief can be granted to the appellant.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that as per the corrigendum issued by the University, an applicant was required to secure 50 percent marks at intermediate level for getting admission in B. Tech. course. It is also not in dispute that the AICTE suggested the University to fix 45 percent marks in intermediate level for getting admission in B. Tech. course, yet the University, by corrigendum made it 50 percent in technical courses. We are of the view that the standard fixed by the AICTE cannot be reduced but it is always open to the State/University to prescribe certain percentage of marks in related subject higher than the minimum prescribed by the AICTE to maintain its standard. In the instant case, the State Government, for the session 2011-12, had prescribed 50 percent as the minimum qualifying marks at the intermediate level and, therefore, a candidate having lesser marks than that cannot claim admission on the ground that since the AICTE had lowered the percentage of marks, the State is bound to follow.
As observed above, the State or the University cannot reduce percentage of marks prescribed by the AICTE but can always prescribe higher percentage of marks than prescribed by the AICTE to maintain its academic standard.
The learned counsel for the appellant relying on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Krishnan Vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376, submitted that since the appellant was earlier given admission, therefore, the same could not be cancelled.
We do not find substance in the aforesaid submissions, also for the reason that the fact of the aforesaid judgment, firstly, does not apply to this case. Secondly, admittedly, the appellant was not qualified in terms of the corrigendum, to be given admission, and therefore, even if the admission is given by the institute in question contrary to the norms fixed by the State Government, the same being illegal, can be cancelled at any stage. That apart, we are of the view that no mandamus can be issued directing the authorities to give admission in the mid of session, inasmuch as the examination for the first semester has already commenced and, therefore, it would not be proper now to permit the admission when, admittedly, session has commenced and classes have been held for a considerable long period. Our view finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Dr. Subodh Nautiyal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 1131, wherein their Lordships did not approve giving admission in technical courses after four months of commencement of the session. In the case in hand also, session commenced and course of first semester is over and the examination has also commenced.
We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.12.2011
AKSI/AHA
(Ran Vijai Singh, J.) (S. Rafat Alam, C.J.)
