Iftakhar Mobin Anjum vs Jamia Millia Islamia And Anr.
1998 Latest Caselaw 833 Del

JUDGMENT

Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. The petitioner applied for admission in B.Ed, course for the session 1997-98 in Jamia Millia Islamia. He appeared in the written test and also in the interview. Though he qualified for admission on the basis of merit he was denied admission on the ground that there was an intervening period of seven years between the last course undergone by him and the course to which admission was sought. The petitioner has produced as Annexure-A, a copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Admission Review Committee held on 16.10.1997. It shows that the Admission Review Committee decided against the admission of the petitioner to the B.Ed. course in view of the gap of seven years between the last course and the present course. According to the petitioner he submitted a representation dated 24.10.1997 to the Vice-Chancellor explaining that in his case the gap was only four years since the result of M. A. examination was declared only late in 1993. He claims to have submitted two more representations dated 14.1.1998 and 15.1.1998 pleading that he also may be admitted to the B.Ed, course since one Miss Vineeta Srivastava who had a gap of 13 years was given admission on the basis of a judgment of this Court in CW 4848/1997. The petitioner also approached Shri Atal Bihari Vajpai, the then Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and got a letter written by his Private Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor requesting to consider this case sympathetically. The petitioner submitted another representation dated 2.2.1998 annexing a copy of the judgment dated 18.12.1997 in CW 4848/1997. Since there was no favourable response from the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for a "direction to the respondents to forthwith admit the petitioner in B.Ed, course for the Session 1997-98". According to the petitioner his case is fully covered by the judgment dated 18.12.1997 of this Court in CW 4848/1997.

2. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents the plea of the petitioner that he was finally selected for admission is disputed. According to the respondents, in the result sheet it was expressly indicated that the petitioner's case alongwith others had been referred to the Admission Review Committee. It is also stated that on 17.9.1997 a notice had been published clearly stating that cases of candidates with intervening period of three years or more would be considered by the Admission Review Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Proctor, the Dean and the Head of the Department. Hence, according to the respondents, the petitioner had prior information of the fact that his case would be referred to the Admission Review Committee. It is also contended by the respondents that even if the intervening period in the case of the petitioner was only four years and not seven years, it would not make any material difference since the cases of all candidates with intervening period of three years or more had to be considered by the Admission Review Committee. It is also stated in the reply that the petitioner's representations based on the judgment in the case of Miss Vineeta Srivastava were too late and that the case of Miss Vineeta Srivastava is clearly distinguishable.

3. It is true that in the judgment in CW 4848/1997 this Court had held that the Prospectus issued by the Faculty of Education of Jamia Millia Islamia for the Academic Session 1997-98 did not contain any clause providing for a review of the cases by the Admission Review Committee where there was a gap of three or more years between the last course and the present course. It was also held therein that the authorities concerned proceeded on the wrong assumption that as in the case of some other Faculties such a condition existed in the rules relating to admission contained in the Prospectus issued by the Faculty of Education also. It was further held that the respondent University was competent to prescribe the conditions for admission and also to amend or modify such conditions, but such amendments or modifications should be effected and published before the commencement of the process of selection and admission. In view of the legal position explained in the judgment in CW 4848/1997 the action of the respondents in denying admission to the petitioner was wrong. But the petitioner cannot be granted any relief since he approached this Court only very late.

4. The B.Ed. course is a single Academic Session course of one year. The petitioner's prayer is for admission to the Academic Session 1997-98. The 1997-98 Academic Session came to an end in March, 1998 and the last class was on 28.3.1998. The examinations started in April, 1998 and the course is already over. The list of selected candidates had been published on 15.10.1997. The decision of the Admission Review Committee held on 16.10.1997 was put on the Notice Board on 22.10.1997. Though the petitioner submitted Annexure-'B' representation dated 24.10.1997, there was no favourable response from the respondents. Inspite of the course being a single Academic Session course of one year and inspite of the inaction of the respondents on the petitioner's representation dated 24.10.1997, the petitioner did not approach this Court sufficiently early. He filed this writ petition only on 6.3.1998. The writ petition came up for admission hearing only on 16.3.1998. By that time the course was scheduled to end on 28.3.1998. Hence it was impossible to pass even an interim order directing the respondents to admit the petitioner to the course. In these circumstances the prayer in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner to the B.Ed. course for the Academic Session 1997-98 cannot be granted. This Court could grant relief to Miss Vineeta Srivastava since she approached this Court sufficiently early. Having come to the Court when the course was about to end the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that since the petitioner was wrongly denied admission during Academic Session 1997-98, the respondents should be directed to admit the petitioner for the Academic Session 1998-99. This argument was strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondents pointing out that the admission for the Academic Session 1998-99 was based on a separate and independent selection process including written test and interview and that the petitioner was not included in the list of selected candidates. I also do not consider it proper or just to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner to the B.Ed, course in the Academic Session 1998-99 on the basis that he had the merit to be admitted to the said course in the Academic Session 1997-98. Admissions to the B.Ed. course in the Academic Session 1998-99 will be governed by the rules regarding admission contained in the Prospectus for the 1998-99 Session and they will be made on the basis of the merit and rank secured by the candidates in the selection process for 1998-99. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any law or precedent which entitles the petitioner for admission in the 1998-99.

6. In the light of the discussion above, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.