Delhi High Court
Mrs. Anshumitra Dasgupta vs Uoi And Ors on 23 February, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd February, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 2435/2010 & CM No.4871/2010 (for stay).
MRS. ANSHUMITRA DASGUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitin Bhatia, Advocate.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshat Goel & Mr. Aditya
Singh, Advocates for R-2.
Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the letters dated 15th March, 2010 and 1st
April, 2010 of the respondent no.2 Guru Nanak Dev University holding the
petitioner not eligible for admission to the P.G. Diploma course in Textile
Design for the Academic Year 2009-2010 with the respondent no.3
Apeejay Institute of Design affiliated to the said University. Notice of the
petition was issued and vide order on the application of the petitioner for
interim relief, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the end term
examination of the one year course, without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties and without creating any equities in favour of the
petitioner.
2. The prospectus of the respondent no.2 University regarding
admission to the said course prescribes the eligibility for admission to the
said course as a Degree in B.A./B.Com/B.Sc. and B.Sc.(Home Science)
examination of the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar or any other
examinations recognized by the said University as equivalent thereto.
3. The petitioner had passed her class XIIth examination in the year
1994 and has in the year 1996 completed B.Com two year pass course
from the Malda College affiliated to the University of North Bengal. The
petitioner claiming to be a graduate and thus fulfilling eligibility criteria,
applied to the respondent no.3 Institute for admission and was admitted in
the said course in July, 2009.
4. The respondent no.3 Institute as per the terms of its affiliation with
the respondent no.2 University is required to forward the eligibility
documents of each candidate to the respondent no.2 University for
scrutiny. The respondent no.3 Institute claims to have so forwarded the
said documents including of the petitioner on 24th August, 2009.
5. The respondent no.2 University vide its letter dated 29th October,
2009 called upon the respondent no.3 Institute to furnish the detailed mark
sheet of B.A. course II DMC of the petitioner to the respondent no.2
University.
6. It is the case of the respondent no.3 Institute that on receipt of the
aforesaid communication from the respondent no.2 University, it had
disclosed the same to the petitioner and in response thereto, the petitioner
furnished to the respondent no.3 Institute a certificate dated 16 th January,
2010 of Malda College and supplied remaining documents to the
respondent no.3 Institute under cover of letter dated 5th March, 2010 and
which were forwarded by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.2
University.
7. The respondent no.2 University finding that the two year graduation
done by the petitioner from Malda College of North Bengal University to
be not equivalent to the graduation of the respondent no.2 University,
issued the communications impugned in this petition holding the petitioner
ineligible for admission. The respondent no.2 University along with its
counter affidavit has filed the extracts of the decision of the meeting of 8 th
April, 1992 of Equivalence Committee of its Academic Council, where
only the three year graduation degrees are recognized as equivalent to the
graduation degree of the respondent no.2 University.
8. There is no challenge to the eligibility criteria laid down by the
respondent no.2 University or to the minutes of the Equivalence
Committee of the respondent no.2 University. There is thus no dispute that
the petitioner was ineligible. Once it is held that she was ineligible for
admission, the legal position is no longer res integra.
9. The Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet
Kaur JT 2010 (7) SC 179 held that the Court has no competence to issue a
direction contrary to law, nor the Court can direct an authority to act in
contravention of statutory provisions. It was held that the High Court
cannot be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance
amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory
Rules & Regulations. It was further held that there can be no
estoppel/promissory estoppel to debar a public authority from enforcing a
statutory provision. The mistake on the part of the University in that case
in allowing an applicant to appear in the examination was held to be
conferring no right in the applicant if not entitled under the Rules &
Regulations to pursue a course. It was held that the Rules & Regulations
cannot be allowed to be defeated merely because the University
erroneously allowed a candidate to appear in the examination.
10. Similarly in Mahatma Gandhi University Vs. Gis Jose (2008) 17
SCC 611 it was held that a student even if wrongly admitted without being
eligible should not be permitted to continue with the course and misplaced
sympathy should not be shown in total breach of Rules.
11. The respondent no.2 University cannot be directed to admit the
petitioner contrary to its rules & regulations, notwithstanding default if any
of respondents in admitting the petitioner.
12. The counsel for the petitioner has however contended that the
respondents having admitted the petitioner after complete disclosure by the
petitioner and the petitioner having completed the course and having also
been allowed to appear in the end term examination, ought not to be now
deprived of the fruits of her labour. Reliance in this regard is placed on
Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610
where inspite of the student having been found to be ineligible for
admission, was allowed to complete the course.
13. However a perusal of the said judgment shows that the student in
that case had also been allowed to appear in the examination and was
issued the admit ticket. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent
no.3 Institute has drawn attention to the admission form of the respondent
no.3 Institute which itself provides for admission given by the Institute to
be provisional and subject to ratification by the University. There is also a
dispute as to whether the Institute at the time of admission was expressly
made aware that the graduation done by the petitioner was of two years
and not of three years as is the norm. Moreover, it is not as if the petitioner
was allowed to continue. Though the ultimate letter was issued only on 15th
March, 2010 i.e. nearing the close of the course but the petitioner in
October, 2009 itself i.e. within three months of the commencement of the
course had been made aware of the doubts raised by the respondent no.2
University as to her eligibility. The petitioner however persisted in
continuing with the course and submitted the required documents only in
January, 2010 and in March, 2010. The petitioner is thus found equally
responsible for the delay. Moreover the petitioner well before the
examination was informed of her ineligibility. Thus the facts in the present
case cannot be said to be comparable with that in the case of Sanjay
Kumar Katwal (supra) for this Court to exercise the discretion in favour of
the petitioner as exercised in that case. Rather it appears that the petitioner
throwing caution to wind obtained admission when ought to have clarified
the position in the beginning only. The petitioner thus cannot be granted
the relief claimed.
14. However the petitioner though having attended the classes and
availed the services/education of the respondent no.3 Institute but having
not benefited therefrom, the respondent no.3 Institute is liable to refund to
the petitioner all amounts received from the petitioner. The counsel for the
respondent no.3 states that part of the fee was forwarded to the respondent
no.2 University also. The respondents are directed to refund the amounts
received from the petitioner within six weeks of today.
Save for the aforesaid direction, the petition is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 23rd , 2011
pp..
