Himanshu Shekhar vs University Of Calcutta & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4283 Cal

Item No.5


                          In The High Court At Calcutta
                         Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                              (via video conference)



17.08.2021
   Ct-24
                                 WPA 6857 of 2021
                                Himanshu Shekhar
                                          vs
                            University of Calcutta & Ors.


                  Mr. Avirup Mondal
                  Mr. Anand Jha
                             ... for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee
                   Mr. Raja Saha
                   Mr. Satyaki Banerjee
                                ... for the University of Calcutta.

                   Mr. Anirban Ghosh
                   Mr. D. Sengupta
                              ... for the College Authority.

                   Mr. Avinash Kankani
                               ... for the respondent no. 8.

The petitioner, in response to the B.A.LL.B

Admission Notice (Detail), 2020-2021, participated in the

online admission process conducted by the University of

Calcutta, Faculty of Law and got admitted in the

Sureswar Dutta Law College.

The admission notice mentions the eligibility

criteria for taking part in the admission process. It

mentions that a candidate must pass 10+2 or its

equivalent exam from the Board recognized by the

University of Calcutta in the year 2018-2020 and the

candidates who passed from the Board other than

WBCHSE, ISC, CBSE, Rabindra Mukto Vidyalaya and

NIOS must obtain "Equivalence Certificate" from the

office of the Registrar, (Equivalence Section) of the

University by a written application in plain paper with

relevant photo copy of 10+2 mark sheet. The certificate

would be required at the time of admission. It was

mentioned that it would be safe to obtain the certificate

before submission of online application.

The petitioner passed Senior Secondary

examination from the Bihar Board of Open Schooling

and Examination, Patna in the year 2018.

According to the eligibility criteria laid down by the

University of Calcutta the candidate was required to

obtain an "Equivalence Certificate" by making an

application before the Registrar (Equivalence Section) of

the University prior to his admission. The petitioner

failed to obtain such "Equivalence Certificate". The

Board from where the petitioner passed his Senior

Secondary Examination is not recognized by the

University of Calcutta.

The University of Calcutta did not issue the

Registration Certificate in favour of the petitioner. The

petitioner approached this Court for relief. He was not

allowed to participate in the First Semester examination.

He has participated in only two papers of the Second

Semester examination pursuant to the leave granted by

this Court.

According to the petitioner, as he was duly

admitted by the College, he ought to be given a chance

to complete his education in the said course from the

said College under the affiliating University. It has been

contended that there was no fault on his part in getting

himself admitted in the College.

In support of his stand the petitioner relies upon

two judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India. The first is Rajendra Prasad Mathur & Ors. vs.

Karnataka University & Ors., reported in AIR 1986 SC

1448, and the second is Ashok Chand Singhvi vs.

University of Jodhpur & Ors., reported in AIR 1989 SC

823.

In Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra) the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that equivalence has to be decided

by the University and it is not a matter of objective

assessment or evaluation by the Court. It is for each

University to decide the question of equivalence of an

examination held by any other Board or University with

the examination, which primarily constitutes the basis of

eligibility.

The Court was of the opinion that there is no

doubt that the appellants were not eligible for admission

to the courses of the University and their admission was

contrary to the ordinance prescribing the conditions of

eligibility.

The Court was of the opinion that it is for each

University to decide the question of equivalence and it

would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over

the decision of the University because it is not a matter

on which the Court possesses any expertise. The

University is best fitted to decide whether any

examination held by a University outside the State is

equivalent to an examination held within the State

having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of

teaching or instruction and the standard of examination.

It is an academic question in which the Court should not

disturb the decision taken by the University.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court endorsed the view

taken by the learned Single Judge affirmed by the

Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court rejecting the

prayer of the students.

However, considering the fact that the students

were permitted to continue their studies in the

respective colleges in which they were granted

admission, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed them to

continue solely on the ground that there was no fault on

the part of the students in securing the admission to the

colleges who got the students admitted on the basis of

the capitation fees paid by them. The Court felt that the

University should take appropriate action against the

erring colleges because the management of the colleges

have not only admitted the students ineligible for

admission, but also thereby deprived an equal number

of eligible students from getting admitted to the course.

The decision in the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi

(supra) has been taken on the same lines. The Court

categorically held that assuming that the student was

admitted through mistake, he not being at fault, it is

difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission

of the appellant.

The petitioner presses the fact that he clearly

disclosed in his application form the name of the Board

from where he passed his 10+2 examination. The

petitioner shifts the entire burden upon the College and

submits that admission was granted on the basis of the

fees paid by him.

The learned advocate representing the University

submits that a list of Boards recognized by the

University of Calcutta is always available in the official

website of the University. The petitioner ought to have

checked whether the Board from which he has passed

his 10+2 examination was recognized by the University

of Calcutta prior to filing up his application form.

It has also been submitted that the petitioner did

not even care to make a formal application before the

Registrar (Equivalence Section) of the University to

obtain the "Equivalence Certificate" which was required

at the time of admission, as the Board from which he

passed his 10+2 examination was not recognized by the

University of Calcutta.

The portion of the application form which

mentions that any false information in the application

form will make the candidate ineligible and his

candidature will be treated as cancelled has also been

placed.

It has been contended that in the second page of

the application form the petitioner has signed a

declaration to the effect that he passed and obtained

45% marks in the 10+2 level from the Board recognized

by the University of Calcutta. The submission of the

University is that his candidature ought to be cancelled

on the basis of such false declaration submitted at the

time of filing of the application form.

A list of Boards which are recognized by the

University of Calcutta has also been placed before this

Court. The Board from where the petitioner pursued his

Senior Secondary examination does not figure in the

said list.

The learned advocate representing the College

submits that the petitioner took admission in the College

on 13th January, 2021. It has been submitted that

during the pandemic period there were only a limited

number of staff who took admission of the candidates

without verifying and scrutinizing the documents

submitted by them. Immediately after it was noticed

that the petitioner did not possess the required eligibility

criteria for taking admission he/his father was intimated

for obtaining the necessary equivalence certificate from

the University of Calcutta. The said intimation was

given to the father of the petitioner way back in

February, 2021. It is the contention of the College that

the father of the petitioner assured the College that the

necessary paper work will be done.

The petitioner filed the writ petition on 5th March,

2021. It is the specific case of the College that the

petitioner did not attend the online classes even for a

single day. The Teacher-in-charge of the Sureswar

Dutta Law College specifically intimated the Deputy

Registrar of the University by a letter dated 11th August,

2021 that during the period classes were held in the

online mode but the petitioner never attended any class.

The letter of the Teacher-in-Charge of the College

addressed to the Deputy Registrar of the University

dated 11th August, 2021 has been taken on record.

The learned advocate for the College submits that

the College is agreeable to refund the money that was

collected from the petitioner on account of admission

charges.

After hearing the submissions made on behalf of

both the parties it appears that admittedly the petitioner

is ineligible for taking admission in the B.A. LL.B course

under the University of Calcutta. The petitioner has not

been able to show any scrap of document that the Board

from where he pursued his 10+2 examination is

recognized by the University of Calcutta. The petitioner

has also failed to produce the equivalence certificate

from the University of Calcutta.

The only basis on which the petitioner intends to

pursue his course are the judgments delivered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra Prasad

Mathur & Ors. (supra) and Ashok Chand Singhvi

(supra).

On perusal of the aforesaid two judgments it

appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the

opinion to permit the candidates to pursue their courses

only because of the reason that in the case of Rajendra

Prasad Mathur (supra) the candidates pursued the

course for four long years and in Ashok Chand Singhvi

the student pursued the course for more than two years.

In the instant case the petitioner took admission

only in January, 2021 and he approached this Court in

March, 2021. The petitioner has not joined the online

classes even for a single day. He did not take part in the

first semester exams and has appeared in only two

papers in the second semester, that too, upon obtaining

order from the Court.

In my opinion, the case of the petitioner is not

akin to the cases which were considered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. The facts being different, the conclusion

will obviously be different.

It was the duty of the College to scrutinize the

papers of the candidates at the time of taking admission.

It is a pandemic year and the College has categorically

stated before this Court that the educational institutions

of the State are closed. Due to shortage of staff, papers

could not be scrutinized properly at the time of

admission, but the moment the discrepancy came to the

notice of the College, it was immediately intimated to the

guardian of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the College is directed to refund the

fees collected from the petitioner which the College was

not at all entitled to, as the petitioner was ineligible for

taking admission to the course.

The submission of loss of academic year of the

student is not a convincing one. The petitioner passed

Senior Secondary examination in the year 2018 and got

himself admitted in the course in the session 2020-21.

He has already lost two valuable years in the

interregnum.

No relief can be granted to the petitioner in the

instant case.

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties upon completion of

usual legal formalities.

Sh                                            (Amrita Sinha, J.)