Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Sumit Yadav & Ors vs Vice Chancellor & Ors on 27 May, 2021
Serial No. 351
After Notice List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
{Through Virtual Mode}
Dated: 27th of May, 2021.
(i) WP(C) No.305/2021:
Sumit Yadav & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(ii) WP(C) No.208/2020:
Manvinder Singh & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(iii) WP(C) No. 1263/2020:
Akshay Nagar & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(iv) WP(C) No. 1495/2020:
Supriya Garg & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(v) WP(C) No. 1501/2020:
Sweta Kumari & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(vi) WP(C) No. 1522/2020:
Irshad Ahmad Dar & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
(vii) WP(C) No. 1526/2020:
Shafqat Hussain & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(viii) WP(C) No. 1550/2020:
Shailender Singh Bhandari & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(ix) WP(C) No. 1570/2020:
Asha Verma & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(x) WP(C) No. 1571/2020:
Vikram Singh & Ors.
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(xi) WP(C) No. 1579/2020:
Mukesh Kumar & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(xii) WP(C) No. 1603/2020:
Raies Ahmad Wani & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(xiii) WP(C) No. 1606/2020:
Kalyan Sahay Lomod & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khwaja, Advocate.
(xiv) WP(C) No. 1668/2020:
Krishan Kumar & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
(xv) WP(C) No. 1792/2020:
Sumit Yadav & Ors.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr Wani Manzoor, Advocate.
Versus
Vice Chancellor & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.
(JUDGMENT)
(Oral:)
01. In all these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners are seeking a direction
in the name of the Respondent-University to confirm their admission for B.
Ed. Course Session 2018-20; accept/ entertain their RRs; register them along
with the Batch of 2018-20 for B. Ed. Course; and also allow them to appear
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
in the examination of Batch 2018-20 along with other candidates. Thus,
common questions of facts and the law are involved in this batch of Writ
Petitions, therefore, I propose to decide the same by virtue of this common
judgment.
02. The case of the Petitioners is that pursuant to admission
notification issued by the Respondent-University in the year 2018, they, in
view of the situation as was prevailing in the then State of J&K (now Union
Territory), could not apply in time and, subsequently, having requested the
private B. Ed. Colleges for seeking admission in B. Ed. Course for the session
2018-20. It is stated that the Respondent-University, however, did not
regularize/ confirm the admission of the Petitioners, despite repeated requests/
representations made in this behalf, constraining the Petitioners to approach
this Court through the medium of Writ Petition bearing WP(C) No.208/2020
titled 'Manvinder Singh & Ors. v. Vice Chancellor, University of Kashmir
& Ors.', which is one of the clubbed Petitions in the batch of Petitions on
hand. In the said Writ Petition, the Court, in terms of an ad-interim order dated
31st of January, 2020, directed the respondent-University to consider the
representation of the Petitioners for confirmation of admission for B.Ed
Course, Session 2018-20. Pursuant to this interim order of the Court, the
Respondent-University, thereafter, in terms of order dated 19th of October,
2020, rejected the claim of the Petitioners, which has been assailed by the
Petitioners in WP(C) No.1792/2020. Thereafter, the Respondent-University
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
is stated to have issued notification No. F (B. Ed. 1 st, 2nd & 3rd, 4th Semester)
KU/2021 dated 10th of February, 2021, thereby notifying the date sheet for
conduct of examination for B.Ed. 1st, 2nd Semester Batch 2018-20 and 3rd, 4th
Semester Batch 2017-2019-Regular/ DDE & eligible backlog for the
candidates who misused their examination in Session Nov-Dec, 2020. This
date sheet notification, too, has been challenged by the Petitioners in WP(C)
No.305/2021.
03. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners,
who have come from different States of the country and having paid huge
amounts to get admission in different private Colleges, have completed the
studies for the Course in question, as such, the Respondent-University is
obliged under law to regularize/ confirm their admission in tune with the
mandate of policy in vogue. It is further submitted that in case the admission
of the Petitioners is not regularized/ confirmed, the entire career of the
Petitioners will get marred and they will be subjected to irreparable loss which
cannot be compensated later on by any means whatsoever. It is pleaded that
the consideration order passed by the Respondent-University in rejecting the
claim for confirmation/ regularization of admission has been issued without
taking into consideration all the relevant facts/ grounds projected by the
Petitioners.
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
04. Respondents have filed Objections in WP(C) No.208/2020,
which, on the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondents, is treated
as Objections to rest of the Petitions as well on behalf of the Respondents. The
Respondents have resisted the averments made by the Petitioners in their
Petitions. It is submitted that according to the admission procedure followed
by the University of Kashmir, admissions to B. Ed courses in all the private
B. Ed Colleges is granted and made by the University. It is contended that it
is the University alone that initially invites applications and then allots
students to various Colleges of the Valley and, thus the Colleges have no
authority to admit students of its own. It is pleaded that the University did not
have any knowledge about the admission of the Petitioners in any of the
Colleges or their pursuit of the Course in respective Colleges. It is further
submitted that the petitioners and concerned Colleges have, apparently,
entered into some arrangement for their admission in next Session and
concerned Colleges have, accordingly, agreed to facilitate their admission for
the Session 2019-21, unmindful of the fact that in the meantime, the criteria
for admission has undergone a change inasmuch as a candidate seeking
admission to B. Ed Course in the general category is now required to have
passed Bachelor's Degree with 50% marks, while as a candidate belonging to
reserved category is required to have passed the Degree with 45% marks, as
opposed to the past practice of 45% and 40%, respectively. This development,
as stated, has rendered the Petitioners ineligible for admission and, in order to
overcome this impediment, the Petitioners, in connivance with the concerned
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
Colleges, who stand to lose in the process if admissions do not fructify, have
come with a new story to claim that they have been admitted for the Session
2018-20. The Respondents have proceeded to state that if the stand of the
Petitioners is taken to be correct, then, in such eventuality, nothing prevented
the concerned Colleges to submit the details of the Petitioners in time, i.e.,
31st of May, 2019 or immediately, thereafter, with some genuine/ plausible
reasons. It is averred that in essence, the Petitioners, having found that they
would be ineligible for Session 2019-21, want predating of their admissions
to Session 2018-20 with a view to render them eligible.
05. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings on record and after considering the matter, it has become axiomatic
that the Petitioners in all these Petitions have taken admission to two-year B.
Ed Course in different Colleges of the Valley on their own, without following
the due procedure prescribed in the Statute of the Respondent-University. The
Petitioners did not respond to the admission notice issued by the Respondent-
University in time, but after expiry of the stipulated time period, claim to have
secured admission directly in the College concerned which is contrary to the
admission policy followed by the Respondent-University. Besides,
admittedly, no Registration Returns (RRs) have been forwarded to the
respondent-University within the fixed timeframe by the concerned Colleges
regarding the admission of the Petitioners. In such circumstances, the action
of the Respondent-University in denying the regularization/ confirmation of
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
the admission of the Petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the
procedure governing the field.
06. It, needs, must be said here that in terms of the Statute in vogue
in the Respondent-University, a B. Ed College affiliated with the Respondent-
University is prohibited from making admission to B. Ed course on its own.
It thus, follows that any admission made in violation of the University Statutes
would not be binding on the University and that the University would be under
no obligation to regularize/ confirm such admission. Once the Petitioners did
not follow this procedure for seeking admission to the B. Ed course and
purportedly sought admission from the Colleges on their own, the respondent-
University is under no obligation to regularize/ confirm such admission.
07. The educational institutions, after admitting the students in wilful
disregard of the University Statute, more often, make an effort to get the
irregularities condoned in the name of academic interest of the students
admitted in violation of the University Statutes. The erring educational
institutions try to give the controversy the colour and complexion of an
emotional issue and argue that the students, though enrolled in violation of
University Statutes, should not be exposed to any penalty for the wrong
committed by the institution. The Courts often fall prey to such persuasion
made by the educational institutions and permit something that is not
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
permissible under the Statutes. Such practices have been deprecated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments.
08. Apart from the above perspective, this issue, as involved herein
this Petition, stands settled by a Coordinate Bench of this Court way back in
the year 2012 in its decision dated 6th of December, 2012 rendered in OWP
No.1156 of 2012 titled 'Divya College of Education v. State of JK & Ors.:
2012 (4) JKJ 164 [HC]', wherein the Court was of the view that any
admission made in violation of the University Statute would not be binding
on the University and that the University would be under no obligation to
regularize/ confirm such admission. This judgment of the Coordinate Bench
was assailed by the Petitioner therein through the medium of LPAOW
No.97/2012, which appeal came to be dismissed on 4th of June, 2013.
09. In the light of the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that any
direction to the Respondent University to regularize the admission of the
Petitioners in violation of the University Statute would be impermissible and
not in tune with the principles that must guide exercise of Writ jurisdiction.
That being so, I do not find any merit in these Petitions which shall,
accordingly, stand dismissed along with all connected CMs. Interim
directions, if any, subsisting as on date in any of the connected Petitions, shall
stand vacated. This order, however, shall not preclude the Petitioners to
WP(C) No. 305/2021
Along with connected matters
approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking damages against the
Colleges concerned in accordance with the law.
10. Registry to place a copy of this judgment on each connected file.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey)
Judge
SRINAGAR
May 27th, 2021
"TAHIR"
i. Whether the Judgment is reportable? Yes/ No.
ii. Whether the Judgment is speaking? Yes/ No.
TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT
2021.05.27 15:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
