Aasim Khan vs Jamia Millia Islamia
1999 Latest Caselaw 498 Del

ORDER

Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by denial of admission to M.B.A. course for the session 1998-99 in the respondent University - Jamia Millia Islamia and he seeks a direction to the respondent University to admit him to the said course.

2. According to the averments in the petition the petitioner took the degree of B.Sc. (physics) from the respondent University in the year 1992. He took M.Sc. degree in physics from the respondent University in the year 1994. He did the B.Ed. course in the respondent University in the year 1997. Thereafter the petitioner applied for admission to the M.B.A. course for the session 1998-99. He appeared in the written test conducted on 22.11.1997. Having qualified in the written test the petitioner was called for interview on 2.1.1998. The first list of 60 selected candidates was published on 12.1.1998. A waiting list also was published by the respondent University. The candidates included in the waiting list were to be considered for admission in the seats remaining unfilled due to non-joining of the candidates included in the list of selected candidates. According to the petitioner the respondent university published a second list of selected candidates on 2.2.1998 and the petitioner was included in the said list at serial No.3 in the category of lold Jamia students. When the petitioner approached the respondent University on 3.2.1998 for depositing the fees he was not allowed to deposit the fees on the ground that he had earlier been admitted to the M.Ed. course. The petitioner informed the authorities that though he had been admitted to the M.Ed. course and had deposited the fees he had intimated to the authorities concerned that he did not intend to continue the M.Ed. course and had requested for return of the fees deposit-

ed by him. The matter was referred to the Admissio Review Committe. However, petitioner was not allowed to deposit the fees in spite of the representations to the Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Technology and the proctor, Jamia Millia Islamia. Hence the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition.

3. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it is stated that it is shown in the Prospectus of the respondent University that any person who has done a professional course from the respondent University will not be entitled to get admission to any other professional course and that any person who has done his post-graduation in one discipline will not be entitled to post graduate in another discipline from the respondent university. It is also alleged that the respondent University has violated its own rules in the matter of admission. As an example the petitioner has pointed out the case of Ms. Sunita Verma who was admitted to the LL.B. course in 1997-98 session though she had done the B.Ed. course in the year 1995 in the respondent university. The petitioner has also mentioned the case of another student (without furnishing the name) who was given admission to M.Sc. (physics) for the session 1996-97 though he had done M.Sc. (Chemistry) in 1992. Accordingl to the petitioner the respondent has used the pick and choose method in the matter of admission and the refusal of admission to the petitioner in the M.B.A. course was without any just or reasonable cause.

4. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent University it is admitted that the petitioner had applied for admission to the M.B.A. course in 1998 and that his name was included in the waiting list. It is stated that his case was referred to the proctor's office for clearance before admission. The Proctor's office pointed out that the petitioner had obtained B.Ed. degree from the respondent University in 1997 and it was also pointed out that the petitioner had applied for admission to the M.Ed. course and admission was granted to him. The long standing policy of the respondent University has been that a student who has already undergone and passed or is undergoing a professional course in the respondent university is disqualified from seeking admission to a professional course in a different stream. Hence the petitioner's case was placed before the Admission Review Committee on 6.2.1998. The Admission Review Committee decided to deny admission to the petitioner.

5. It is pointed out in the reply of the respondent that in his application dated 3.10.1997 for admission to the M.B.A. course the petitioner had concealed the fact that he had already obtained a bachelor's degree in a professional course. (B.Ed.) from the respondent University in the year 1997 and that he had applied for and had been admitted to the M.Ed. course in the respondent University for the session 1997-98. According to the respondent the above mentioned concealment was deliberate and motivated as the petitioner was fully aware of the long standing policy of the respondent University that a student who has already undergone and passed or is undergoing a professional court seat the respondent University is disqualified from seeking admission to a professional course in a different stream. A photocopy of the petitioner's application for admission to the M.B.A. course has been produced as Annexure R-1. Column 8 in the application form is for furnishing the educational qualifications. Under the head "Exams Passed", Matric/S.S.C, S.Sec/Inter Mediate, Diploma and B.A./B.Sc. Engineering/B.E. are mentioned. In his application the petitioner has given the details about the examinations of Matric/S.S.C., S.Sec./Inter Mediate, B.Sc. (Physics) and M.Sc. (physics), is shown in the space for other qualifications. However, the petitioner has not mentioned "B.Ed." in the space for other qualifications. According to the respondent, B.Ed. is a professional course and if the petitioner showed that he had taken the B.Ed.

degree from the respondent University he would have been found disqualified for admission to the M.B.A. course which is a professional course in a different stream.

6. The respondent has also stated in its reply that the petitioner obtained the B.Ed. degree in the respondent University in the year 1997 and that the prospectus applicable to the said course had clearly provided that after passing the B.Ed. course a student would not be admitted to any other professional/non profesional courses. According to the respondent the petitioner had taken admission to the B.Ed. course accepting the condition that after passing the B.Ed. course he would not be later admitted to any other professional course/non professional course in the respondent Univer-

sity.

7. The Officiating Registrar of the respondent University has filed a supplementary affidavit denying the allegation that the respondent was following the policy of pick and choose in the matter of admissions. Regarding the case of Ms. Sunita Verma pointed out in the petition it is stated that she was admitted to the LL.B. course but the records of the Examination Department of the respondent University did not show that she had obtained B.Ed. degree as alleged by the petitioner. Regarding the case of the other students (Aas Mohammad, according to the respondent) it is stated that in his application for admission to the M.Sc. (Physics) course for the session 1996-97 he had not disclosed that he had obtained a Master's Degree in Chemistry in 1992 from the respondent University. It is also stated that the said condidate had furnished an affidavit stating that after obtaining his B.Sc. Degree in 1990 he had been teaching in a public school from December 1992 till July 1995. The said Aas Mohammad secured admission by suppression of relevant facts and steps have been initiated for taking appropriate action against him.

8. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it is admitted that in his application for admission to the M.B.A. course he had not mentioned the B.Ed. degree. The reason stated for not mentioning the B.Ed. degree is that the petitioner thought that B.Ed. degree was equivalent to Bachelor's degree.

9. The petitioner has not denied the averment of the respondent that in the prospectus in respect of the B.Ed. course undergone by the petitioner had provided that after passing the B.Ed. course he would not be admitted to any other professional/non professional course in the respondent University. The petitioner was aware of the said provision in the prospectus and he had taken admission in B.Ed. course accepting the above mentioned provision in the prospectus. Having taken admission in the B.Ed. course accepting the above provision in the prospectus the petitioner is not entitled to seek the help of this Court for securing admission in another professional course in the respondent University. Even if the prospectus for the M.B.A. course did not contain any disqualification for candidates who had earlier undergone another professional course in the respondent University, the petitioner cannot invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court since he had taken admission in the B.Ed. course accepting the condition that he would not be later entitled to seek admission to another professional course in the respondent University. It is not as though the petitioner was not aware of the above mentioned provision in the prospectus in respect of the B.Ed. course. In paragraph 14 of the petition the petitioner himself has stated that as per the prospectus any person who has done a professional course from the respondent University will not be entitled to get admission to any other professional course. Hence I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner.

10. Since the petitioner was admittedly aware of the policy of the respondent University that a person who had undergone a professional course from the respondent University will not be entitled to get admission to another professional course, the omission of the petitioner to write the qualification of B.Ed. degree in his application for admission to the M.B.A. course amounts to concealment of relevant information. It cannot be disputed that B.Ed. course is a professional course. The explanation of the petitioner that he considered B.Ed. degree as equivalent to any other Bachelor degree can not be accepted. The petitioner knew that if he had mentioned B.Ed. degree among the qualifications in the application form he would not have been considered for admission to the M.B.A. course. Hence, there is force in the contention of the respondent that the name of the petitioner happened to be considered for admission and to be included in the waiting list on account of the above mentioned concealment of relevant information by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction.

11. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was following a policy of pick and choose in the matter of admission. The case of one Ms. Sunita Verma pointed out by the petitioner was verifled by the respondent and it has been found that she had not obtained a B.Ed. degree from the respondent University before seeking admission to the LL.B. course. In the case of Mr. Aas Mohammad it is clear that he obtained admission to the M.Sc (Physics) course by concealing the fact that he had earlier taken the M.Sc. (Chemistry) degree from the respondent University.

The respondent cannot be held guilty of following the policy of pick and choose merely because one candidate managed to get admission to a course by concealing relevant information. Obviously the admission of Mr. Aas Mohammad to M.Sc. (Physics) course was due to a mistake but the respondent was not responsible for the said mistake.

12. In these circumstances the respondent cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in denying admission to the petitioner to the M.B.A. course. The petitioner was not subjected to any hostile discrimination by the respondent. No fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed.

13. Learned counel for the petitioner contended that the policy of the respondent University to deny admission to a candidate in a professional course on the ground that he had earlier undergone a professional course in a different stream in the respondent University is illegal and arbitrary. The said policy of the respondent University is not challenged in the writ petition and hence it is not necessary for me to consider the above contention of the learned counsel. However, I may observe that the above stated policy of the respondent cannot be said to have merit. There are only limited number of seats available in each professional course. Large number of students seek admission to the professional courses. Heavy financial burden is borne by the students and the University/State in connection with such courses. There will be waste of time, talent, energy and resources if the same person undergoes professional corses in different streams. Hence, the respondent University is justified in regulating admission to professional courses by insisting that a candidate who has under gone a professional course in the respondent University cannot seek admission to another professional course in a different stream in the respondent University. It is also to be observed that if the petitioner is so interested incontinuing to be a student for long or if he is interested in becoming a versatile genius, proficient in different streams of learning, he can seek admission in other Universities without insisting that the respondent University should change its policy to cater to the individual interest and ambition of the petitioner.

14. There is no merit in this writ petition and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.