Rajkumar vs Registrar Indira Gandhi Krishi ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1751 Chatt

                                        -1-


                                                                              NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                              WPC No. 775 of 2022
      Rajkumar S/o Vishnu Prasad Sonwani, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
       Village Kunwamalgi, Post Kolegan, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham
       Chhattisgarh.
                                                                     ---- Petitioner
                                      Versus
     1. Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Krishak Nagar, Raipur,
        District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492012
     2. President, Ph.D. Admission Committee, Agriculture College, Raipur
        Chhattisgarh.
     3. Satyanarayan Soni, College of Agriculture Raipur (Agriculture
        Economics) Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Krishak Nagar,
        Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ---- Respondents

For Petitioner - Shri Praveen Das, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 and 2 - Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 - Shri Vikash Pandey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 31-03-2022

1. It is submitted that the petitioner has passed the examination degree in

Master of Science (Agriculture)-Agriculture Economics in the year 2021 from

Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. On this basis he applied

for Ph.D. course from SC category in the respondent University. The petitioner

passed the eligibility examination, went through counseling procedure and then

he was given the seat confirmation letter Annexure-P/10 on 04-12-2021. Vide

Annexure-P/11 the petitioner was offered the seat for Ph.D. in agriculture

economics and also allotted the College of Agriculture, Raipur. All the

documents submitted were verified. Subsequent to which, the petitioner had

paid the fees as required. Later on, the admission of the petitioner has been

cancelled by respondent No.1 regarding which he has received communication

dated 10-01-2022 vide Annexure P/16, in which it is mentioned that the

petitioner did not have requisite qualification on the last date, i.e., 28-11-2021.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner had not received provisional degree on

the date he filed the application for admission to Ph.D. course. Therefore, the

petitioner had filed a letter from Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya

dated 26-11-2021 certifying his participation and completion of the

postgraduate course. The copy of the degree (Annexure-P/4) was issued later

on which is dated 01-12-2021. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate relief be

granted to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 opposes the submission of

the petitioner side and submits that on the date of submission, that is, 28-11-

2021 the petitioner did not have the postgraduate degree which was essentially

required for his admission to the Ph.D. course. The guidelines in the admission

to such course are very clear, hence, for this reason the petitioner did not fulfill

the criteria. The admission that was erroneously granted to him has been

cancelled rightly. It is submitted that in the case of Dolly Chhanda Vs.

Chairman, JEE and others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 it has been held that

possession of requisite qualification(s) by the date fixed is essential to seek

admission in the course applied for. Further, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Narendra

Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750, it is submitted that any mistake which has been

committed can be corrected any time. Therefore, the beneficiary of such

mistake cannot insist for continuing his benefits. Hence, the petition is without

any substance which may be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submission adopting

the argument advanced by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. It is

submitted that respondent No.3 who has been given admission in place of the

petitioner is continuing in the course since more than two months. Therefore,

any order against him will adversely affect his career and future. Hence, the

petition be dismissed.

5. In reply it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

Annexure-P/7 is a certificate issued in anticipation of issuance of degree,

Annexure-P/4 which has been issued on later on date. Only for the reason that

degree has been issued on a later date it cannot be presumed that the

petitioner did not have the qualification present on 28-11-2021.

6. Considered on the submissions. The only reason mentioned in

Annexure-P/16 is this, that the petitioner did not have requisite qualification on

the date fixed that is 28-11-2021. Therefore, his admission was cancelled. The

verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner were made by

respondent No.1 in which all the documents filed by the petitioner were found

verified, however, there is comment with regard to the transcript of PG degree

that uploaded document was different and produced document was correct. It

is clear that on the date the petitioner had applied for the course, he did not

have in his possession the degree (Annexure-P/4) because it was issued to

him on 1 December, 2021, but the same university had issued the certificate in

favour of the petitioner, in which it was mentioned that the petitioner had

successfully completed all the prescribed courses with 7.21 OGPA out of 10.00

and also submitted the Thesis for evaluation. There is similarly mention in the

degree (Annexure-P/4) issued on 01 December, 2021. These are the

technicalities because of which the petitioner has been denied admission to the

course in which although he was selected and admitted for some time, which is

equivalent to denial of his right after having all the eligibility for the course the

petitioner had opted. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for relief. Respondent

No.3 is otherwise eligible for the said seat as at present he is continuing with

the Ph.D. course on the seat on which the petitioner was earlier admitted. The

petition is disposed off. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to find a way out,

if necessary create additional seat and grant admission to the petitioner in the

course of the Ph.D. for which he had opted, within a time limit of 30 days. This

Court has not found it appropriate to cancel the admission of respondent No.3.

The order dated 10-01-2022 passed by the respondents side (Annexure-P/16)

is hereby quashed.

7. The petition stands disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Aadil