Delhi High Court
Nitish Sharma And Ors. vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 12 November, 2013
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 849/2013
NITISH SHARMA AND ORS. .... Appellants
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with
Ms. Seema Salwan, Advocate
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA
UNIVERSITY AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate with
Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra and
Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Anubha Agarwal, Advocate for
R-2.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate with
M. Mamta Tiwari, Advocate for R-3.
Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with
Ms. Seema Salwan, Advocate for 5(a)
to (j).
% Date of Decision : 12th November, 2013
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
CM APPL. 17867/2013 in LPA 849/2013
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
LPA 849/2013 & CM APPL. 17868/2013
1. Present letters patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment
and order dated 21st October, 2013 passed by learned Single Judge whereby
writ petition of appellants seeking a direction to the respondent no. 1-
University to accommodate appellants within its affiliated college/institute
for the purpose of completing their MBA regular course without charging
any further fee, was dismissed.
2. When it was pointed out to appellants that the direction to transfer the
students to MD University was passed in LPA No.756/2011 by another
Division Bench of this Court, appellants submitted that the aforesaid order
of the Division Bench was a nullity as it had been passed in absence of the
students. The appellants also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University & Anr., AIR 1986
SC 1448 wherein it has been held as under:-
"8. We accordingly endorse the view taken by the learned
Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
But the question still remains whether we should allow the
appellants to continue their studies in the respective
engineering colleges in which they were admitted. It was
strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that
under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of
this Court they have been pursuing their course of study in the
respective engineering colleges and their admissions should not
now be disturbed because if they are now thrown out after a
period of almost four years since their admission their whole
future will be blighted. Now it is true that the appellants were
not eligible for admission to the engineering degree course and
they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be
noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more
upon the engineering colleges which granted admission than
upon the appellants.........We do not see why the appellants
should suffer for the sins of the managements of these
engineering colleges........"
3. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has dealt with the
aforesaid submissions of the appellants as under:-
"9.......Therefore, the students who took admission with
respondent No.4 in the academic year 2011-2012 including the
petitioners before this Court, were fully aware that they were
taking admission on the strength of interim orders passed by the
Court and their admission would be purely provisional and
subject to further orders in the said LPA. In fact, the petitioners
also furnished undertakings stating therein that they clearly
understood that the admission was purely provisional and
temporary and subject to final orders of this Court in LPA
No.756/2011. They also acknowledged that they would not be
entitled to regular admission merely on the basis of the
aforesaid provisional and temporary admission and would
have no objection to the final decision taken by the
University in this regard. Therefore, having clearly
understood the implications of taking admissions on a
provisional basis. Having agreed to abide by the decision of the
University in this regard, the petitioners can have no grievance
if on account of the aforesaid LPA having been allowed,
GGSIPU has refused to grant them admission for completing
their MBA course with the said University.
10. It is not as if the Division Bench while deciding LPA
No.756/2011 did not take care of the interest of the petitioners
and other students who were similarly situated. A direction
was issued to the Government of Haryana to accommodate all
such students in MD University which is a University situated in
Haryana. The petitioners, however, are unwilling to pursue the
remaining course of their study in MD University. Since the
Division Bench, in its wisdom, did not direct GGSIPU to
allow the petitioners to continue the remaining course and rather
directed the State of Haryana to admit them in MD University,
the petitioners have no legal right to pursue the remaining
course in a college affiliated to respondent No.1-GGSIPU.
11...... In the case before this Court, GGSIPU did not at all
grant affiliation to respondent No.4-Global Educational & Social
Trust and it was only pursuant to the interim orders of this Court
that provisional admission was granted to the petitioners and
other students who are similarly situated. Therefore, the above-
referred observations do not apply to the petitioner and that
precisely could be the reason why the Division Bench did not
direct GGSIPU to permit the petitioners to complete their course
in a college affiliated to the said University and rather directed
the State of Haryana to accommodate them in MD University.
12. The primary grievance of the petitioners was against the
order of the Division Bench which instead of directing GGSIPU
to permit the petitioners to complete their course from another
college affiliated to GGSIPU, directed the Government of
Haryana to admit them in MD University. The petitioners availed
of the remedy available to them in law by filing a Special Leave
Petition. That Special Leave Petition was, however, withdrawn
by them. Though the Division Bench vide order dated 19.7.2013
permitted them to file a fresh petition, that would be of no
consequence since the view taken in the order dated 27.8.2012
passed by the Division Bench cannot be given a go-bye in the
present writ petition. In any case, the petitioners have no legal
right to continue the remaining course in a college affiliated to
GGSIPU since they took provisional admission knowing fully
well that in the event of the final order in the LPA No.756/2011
going against them they would have no benefit of such
provisional admission. Moreover, the petitioners were
accommodated by the Division Bench by directing their
admission in MD University. Having not availed of the benefit of
the aforesaid direction given by the Division Bench, the
petitioners cannot succeed unless they are able to show that their
plight is attributable to some wrongful act on the part of
respondent No.1-GGSIPU. No such case, however, has been
made out by the petitioner.
For the reasons stated hereinabove the writ petition is
dismissed......"
4. We are entirely in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned
Single Judge. Consequently, we see no merit in the present appeal.
5. At this stage, appellants state that they are now willing to continue
with their course in MD University.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we direct the State of Haryana to allow
the students of erstwhile respondent No.4 to carry on with their further
studies in MD University.
7. Consequently, the State of Haryana through the MD University, is
directed to grant admission to the appellants or any other student of
respondent No.4, who is willing to appear in the semester exams to be held
shortly.
Order dasti under signatures of Court Master.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
NOVEMBER 12, 2013
rn/js
