Gauhati High Court
WA/218/2020 on 17 February, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010182302020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Appeal No.218 of 2020
Sahad Hussain Mazumder,
aged about 19 years,
Son of- Fazal Uddin Mazumder,
Resident of village- Chiporsangon, Part-II,
Post Office- Chiporsangon,
Police Station- Algapur, District- Hailakandi,
Assam.
............Appellant
-versus-
1. The Cotton University,
Represented by the Registrar, Panbazar, Guwahati-01.
2. The Vice Chancellor, the Cotton University,
Panbazar, Guwahati-01.
3. The Registrar, the Cotton University, Panbazar,
Guwahati-01.
4. The Academic Registrar, the Cotton University,
Panbazar, Guwahati-01.
5.The Director of Higher Education, Assam, Panbazar, Guwahati-
19.
...............Respondents
Page No.# 2/5
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Banik, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 : Mr. P.D. Nair, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. K. Gogoi, Standing Counsel.
Higher Education, Assam.
Date of hearing of Judgment & Order : 17th February, 2021.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, C.J.)
Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the writ appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr.
P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr. K. Gogoi, counsel for the
respondent no.4.
2. The writ appellant/writ petitioner before this Court is aggrieved of the order dated
19.11.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.3588/2020, whereby this writ petition has been dismissed
by the learned Single Judge.
3. The writ appellant/writ petitioner had a limited grievance for which he approached this
Court, by filing a writ petition. The writ appellant/writ petitioner was an applicant for the
undergraduate course which is called "B.A. Honours in Persian". The advertisement dated
23.07.2020 published by the Cotton University (from hereinafter referred to as "the University"),
undoubtedly states that there will be ten seats available for this undergraduate course in Persian,
and it further states that the University will not hold the course in case there are less than 50%
students for the said course. In other words, had there been less than five students, the
University was not to hold that course. The writ appellant/writ petitioner applied for the said
course by logging into the University website on 31.07.2020 and successfully completed the first
phase of the admission process. However, when the writ appellant/writ petitioner tried to login
the link of the University website again 02.09.2020, for further completion of his admission
Page No.# 3/5
process, then after giving access to the writ appellant/writ petitioner for uploading his details in
the website, the site was suddenly closed down and the access was denied. Thereafter, on
04.09.2020, the writ appellant/writ petitioner submitted a representation through email to the
respondent University stating that he was unable to login the website of the University and had to
face difficulty for completing the admission process. The University replied that there was a
stipulation in the advertisement itself that the University authorities will not admit any student in
any of the given subject if the total of the admitted students did not meet the requirement of
50% of the seats for the subject concerned. Since the writ appellant/writ petitioner is the sole
candidate for the undergraduate Persian Course, he will not be granted admission. Aggrieved by
the said order, the writ appellant/writ petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court.
4. The contention of the writ appellant/writ petitioner did not find favour before the learned
Single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed, against which the writ appellant/writ petitioner
filed the instant writ appeal before this Court. Undoubtedly, there was a clear stipulated terms
and conditions in the advertisement that the undergraduate course in Persian will only be
imparted if the students strength is five or more. If it is less than five, course will not start. The
admitted position is that the writ appellant/writ petitioner was the only candidate who had applied
for the said course. There is no dispute as to the eligibility of the writ appellant/writ petitioner. It
is an admitted position that the writ appellant/writ petitioner has all the qualifications for being
admitted in the said course, which is "B.A. Honours in Persian".
5. The denial of admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner looks logical when we only see
the terms and conditions of the advertisement. But we have to examine it on a broader
perspective. Cotton University was earlier known as the "Cotton College" which is one of the
premier institutes of the entire North East India. Students, particularly from the North East region
of the country aspire to study in this University. The University must have a reasonable cause for
denying admission to a student, who is otherwise qualified. On our pointed queries, there are
only two reasons given by the University for denying admission to the writ appellant/writ
petitioner. One was that he was wrongfully given an access to the admission and therefore after
half an hour the access was denied. But the real reason given is that since he is the only
candidate for the Persian Course, the University is well within its right to deny admission to the
writ appellant/writ petitioner. Mr. P.D. Nair, the learned counsel for the University has now
Page No.# 4/5
informed us that there are presently two Associate Professors and one Assistant Professor, i.e. a
total of three teachers. In the affidavit which we have before this Court, it is submitted that one
of the Associate Professors will retire shortly on attaining the age of superannuation. In any case,
the University will have one Associate Professor and one Assistant Professor i.e. two teachers. We
have further been informed that there are only five students in the postgraduate course in Persian
and two Ph.D scholars. In other words, there are only seven students in the University and there
are presently three teachers to teach them. It is not the case of the University that they are going
to discontinue with the services of these teachers, even though it has been submitted before this
Court that the University is actively thinking of discontinuing the "B.A. Honours in Persian" in
future. This may be so but the fact remains that when the admitted position is that the University
has presently three teachers, their denial of admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner does
not seem to be reasonable for the simple reason that there are enough teachers in the University
to teach Persian. Teachers are there to teach. It is not the case of the University that it is
contemplating to discontinue the services of these teachers. It is also not the case of the
University that they are contemplating to teach only M.A. (Persian) or Ph.D programmes in future.
One more students in the University for undergraduate course in Persian language, will therefore,
not matter and the University has absolutely no reason to deny admission to the students,
particularly when there are teachers existing in the University to impart teaching of Persian.
Nothing has been stated before this Court by the learned counsel for the University which may
even remotely suggest that the University would be breaking any law or even a UGC guideline if it
teaches only one student in an undergraduate class. Once the University had advertised the
course and a student has sought admission and he/she is eligible for grant of admission, the
University cannot deny admission to a student for reasons that one student is too less, and it is
contemplating to discontinue the course in future as this is the only reason which has come
before us. It is true that the University had given a condition in the advertisement that if 50% of
the seats remains unfilled they will not have the course. But this technical advantage cannot be
given to the University. Here, the conditions are not to be read as it ought to be in a fiscal matter
or a commercial contract. We are dealing here with issues of "learning", and higher education!
Simply put when the University has enough teachers, can it deny "education" to a student who
seeks to learn the subject, and has all the qualifications? The answer would be No. The University
does not have a justifiable reason to deny admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner.
Page No.# 5/5
6. The writ appeal, therefore, succeeds. We set aside the order of the learned Sing Judge
dated 19.11.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.3588/2020 and issue mandamus to the respondent
University to forthwith grant admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
