Anuradha (Miss) vs Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7947 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:31988]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14669/2023

1. Anuradha (Miss) D/o Shri Suresh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Delsar Kalan, District Jhunjhunun, Rajasthan.

2. Yohesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhagirath, Aged About 26 Years, Vpo Gandhi Bari, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

3. Shiv Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Rohitasve Singh Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o House No. 83, Near Maranatha School, Ward No. 02, Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

4. Mrinal Pandey S/o Shri Nand Kishore Pandey, Aged About 23 Years, R/o House No. 19, Gali No. 04, Near Central Academy, Police Line, Kota, Rajasthan.

5. Aakanksha Pareek (Miss) D/o Shri Dinesh Pareek, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 19/r, Near Bus Stand, Phulera, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

6. Shobhana Bishnoi (Miss) D/o Shri Om Vishnu, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No.1, Chak 16 A, , Po 15 Ab, Anoopgarh, District Srignganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar.

2. Director, Rajasthan Agriculture Research Institute, Main Tonk Road, Infront Of Hotel Radison, Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Dean, Sri Karan Narendra College Of Agriculture, Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Coordinator, Jet/ Pre-Pg/ Ph.d. Entrance Examination -

2023, Agriculture University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

5. Registrar, Agriculture University Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14731/2023

Jigyasa Ninama (Miss) D/o Shri Prabhu Lal Ninama, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Krishna Colony, Udaipur Road, Shyampura, Banswara (Rural), Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. College Of Agriculture, Sriganganagar, Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Beechwal Bikaner, Rajasthan, Through Its Dean.

2. Registrar, Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Beechwal Bikaner, Rajasthan.

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (2 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

3. Coordinator, Jet/ Pre-Pg/ Ph.d. Entrance Examination -

2023, Agriculture University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

4. Registrar, Agriculture University Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14855/2023

1. Neeraj Kumar S/o Shri Vishwapriya Kumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o House No. 10 B, Gulal Kund Colony, Surajpole Chouraya, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

2. Aditya Mohan Maharishi S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 31, Mohan Nagar, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. College Of Agriculture, Ummedganj, Ummedganj Farm, Kaithoon, Kota, Rajasthan, Through Its Dean.

2. Registrar, Agriculture University, Kota, Rajasthan.

3. Coordinator, Jet / Pre-Pg / Ph.d. Entrance Examination

- 2023, Agriculture University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

4. Registrar, Agriculture University Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

                                                                      ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)               :    Mr. Nihar Jain a/w
                                     Dr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondent(s)               :    Mr. D.S. Beniwal

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 27/09/2023 Pronounced on 05/10/2023

1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

SBCWP No.14669/2023 :

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction:

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (3 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

A] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the impugned office orders dated 18.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 (Annex.-17) cancelling the petitioners' admission may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be directed to restore the petitioners' admission to the Ph.D. program in Agriculture for the academic session 2023-24 and further allow them to pursue their Ph.D. Degree in their respective subjects and respective institutes.

C] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be restrained from conducting on-spot counseling for the seats for which the petitioners have already been granted admission to pursue their Ph.D. degree courses.

D] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be restrained from taking any further adverse actions against the petitioners' admission during their course of study.

E] Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioners.

F] Cost of litigation may kindly be awarded to the humble petitioners.

SBCWP No.14731/2023 :

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction:

A] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the impugned office order dated 16.09.2023 (Annex.-17) cancelling the petitioners' admission may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be directed to restore the petitioners' admission to the

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (4 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

Ph.D. program in Agriculture for the academic session 2023- 24 and further allow them to pursue her Ph.D. Degree.

C] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents be restrained from conducting on-spot counseling for the seats for which the petitioner has already been granted admission to pursue her Ph.D. degree courses.

D] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be restrained from taking any further adverse actions against the petitioners' admission during her course of study.

E] Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.

F] Cost of litigation may kindly be awarded to the humble petitioner."

SBCWP No.14855/2023 :

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction:

A] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the impugned office order dated 20.09.2023 (Annex.-17) cancelling the petitioners' admission may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be directed to restore the petitioners' admission to the Ph.D. program in Agriculture for the academic session 2023- 24 and further allow them to pursue their Ph.D. Degree in their respective subjects and respective Institutes.

C] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents be restrained from conducting on-spot counseling for the seats for which the petitioners have already been granted admission to pursue their Ph.D. degree courses.

D] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be restrained from taking any further adverse actions against the petitioners' admission during their course of study.

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (5 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

E] Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioners.

F] Cost of litigation may kindly be awarded to the humble petitioners."

2. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy

though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore,

for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts

are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 14731/2023, while treating the same as a lead case; rival

submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in

the present judgment, would also be based, particularly, on the

factual matrix of the lead case.

3. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioner was

admitted to pursue Post Graduation Degree [M.Sc Ag.

(Agronomy)] from Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture,

Technology and Sciences Prayagraj (U.P.) (hereinafter referred to

as "SHUATS"), through National Level Entrance Test for the

academic session 2021-22 as per the admission prospectus of

SHUATS, which she duly completed in August, 2023.

3.1. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for admission in the Ph.D

programme in Agriculture as per the General Guidelines for the

Ph.D Entrance for the Session 2023; the petitioner had applied for

the JET-2023, whereafter, the petitioner qualified the said

examination and was allotted admission in the College of

Agriculture, Sriganganagar. The petitioner also followed the

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (6 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

procedure for admission and deposited the requisite fees, as per

the provisional registration form issued by the respondent-College.

Subsequently, the respondent-College issued an office order dated

22.08.2023, whereby the petitioner was directed to report for

completion of the course work at College of Agriculture, Bikaner.

3.2. The Registrar of the Agriculture University, Jodhpur raised a

query and issued a communication dated 18.08.2023 to various

Private Universities including SHUATS with regard to the admission

process adopted by the concerned university for PG and Ph.D.

Agricultural Courses. Thereafter, in response of the said

communication, the Joint Registrar of SHUATS vide e-mail dated

19/20.08.2023 stated that the admissions were granted on the

basis of merit obtained in All-India level Online Entrance Test

conducted by SHUATS.

3.3. The Dean of the Rajasthan College of Agriculture, after

receiving the direction from the Coordinator JET-2023, vide office

order dated 19.08.2023 cancelled the admission of the petitioner.

The admission of the similarly situated students were also

cancelled by the respondents. The JET Coordinator, Ph.D. Entrance

Examinations-2023, Agriculture University, Jodhpur vide

communication dated 16.09.2023 issued a direction to cancel the

admissions of the similarly situated students, in compliance

whereof, the respondent-College vide the impugned order dated

16.09.2023 cancelled the admission of the petitioner on the

ground that she did not fulfill the essential qualification as

mentioned at point no. 2.1 of Ph.D Booklet-2023 (General

Guidelines-2023).

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (7 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has obtained the PG Degree from the SHUATS which is

State recognized statutory university, and therefore, the petitioner

cannot be ousted from being granted admission in Ph.D. Course in

question.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the admission

process adopted by the SHUATS was considered valid for

admission to Ph.D programme for the academic session 2022. It

was also submitted that the petitioner applied for the Ph.D

program as per the eligibility criteria laid down in the General

Guidelines for Ph.D. Entrance for the Session 2023, and thus, she

was entitled to be admitted therein.

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the SHUATS is

recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)

and when the petitioner undertook admission in the year 2021, it

was recognized by ICAR, and therefore, the petitioner's admission

ought not have been cancelled, and thus, the impugned action of

the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made

on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner did not

fulfill the requirement pertaining to educational qualification as

notified in Clause 2.1 of the General Guidelines; neither she has

completed her P.G. Degree Programme through Pre-P.G./National

Level/State Level Entrance Examination, nor she has completed

her P.G. Degree Programme from any of the State Agriculture

Universities or their constituent Colleges in the State of Rajasthan.

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (8 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

5.1. It was further submitted that there are five State Universities

in the State of Rajasthan, wherein the students are not admitted if

they do not meet the prescribed academic standards as per

Section 6 of the Agricultural University Kota Act, 2013 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act of 2013').

5.2. It was also submitted that the as per the Section 14 (3) (iv)

of the Act of 2013 prescribes that the Academic Council of each

University shall have the power to make regulations regarding

admission of the students in the University and determine the

number of students to be admitted.

5.3. It was further submitted that the representatives of all the

State Agriculture Universities were called to convene a meeting on

12.01.2023 to discuss various issues relating to JET Entrance

Examination; Agenda Item No. II thereof deals with the essential

eligibility conditions and; as per Agenda Item No. VIII, the JET/

Pre PG/Ph.D. documents were to be approved by the Academic

Council of all the State Agriculture Universities. As per learned

counsel, the petitioner did not challenge the General Guidelines,

and therefore, now she is not entitled to be granted any relief in

the present case.

5.4. It was also submitted that in the SHUATS, 25% PG seats

were to be filled through All India Entrance Test conducted by the

ICAR and rest 75 % PG seats were to be filled by the University at

its own level, and the petitioner was admitted against the said

25% seats, and therefore, as per the norms and guidelines, the

petitioner's admission has been rightly cancelled.

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (9 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

5.5. It was further submitted that the notification issued by the

State of Uttar Pradesh to conduct UPCATET-2023 for admissions in

the State Agriculture Universities in the State of Uttar Pradesh,

wherein the SHUATS has not even been named as one of the

Institute where admission to Ph.D courses would be accorded in

pursuance of the aforesaid examination.

5.6. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon

the following judgments:-

(a) Council For Indian School Certificate Examination Vs Isha

Mittal & Anr. (2000) 7 SCC 521;

(b) C.B.S.E. & Anr. Vs. P. Sunil Kumar & Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 377;

(c) State of Orrisa & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436;

(d) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs Lata Arun (2002) 6 SCC 252;

and

(e) Sakshi Chauhan Vs. Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University &

Ors. (LPA No. 15 of 2021, decided on 19.07.2023) by the Hon'ble

High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.

6. In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that once the documents are verified and fees are

deposited by the petitioner with the University and provisional

admission was granted, then the cancellation of admission of the

petitioner in the Course in question is highly illegal and arbitrary.

6.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent

authorities are not at all disputing the validity of the Degree of the

petitioner as awarded by the SHUATS. It was also submitted that

the meeting dated 12.01.2023 was only convened to review and

finalize the guidelines and syllabus of JET, Pre-PG and Ph.D.

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (10 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

Entrance Examination-2023, and not the eligibility criteria for

admission in the respective Courses, and therefore, the impugned

decision so taken cannot be termed to be as per the statutory

condition/guidelines.

6.2. It was also submitted that the condition of getting

admission in the respective P.G Course through a National/State

Level Entrance Test can be insisted upon in regard to the students

clearing their PG from any private agriculture university; the same

is only a guideline and not a statutory circular or any order passed

by any statutory authority.

6.3. It was further submitted that the SHUATS itself organizes its

National Level Entrance Examination for admission in UG/PG/Ph.D

Courses and also included in the list of institutions who can grant

admissions through All India Entrance Examination in the Master

Degree Course. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the entire

submission made on behalf of the respondents does not hold any

justification for passing of the impugned order, and thus, the same

is not justified in law.

6.4. It was also submitted that the similarly situated students of

SHUATS have been admitted in the Ph.D. Degree Course by the

ICAR by way of National Level Entrance Test conducted by the

ICAR itself.

6.5. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon

the following judgments:-

(a) Dr. Neelu Gupta Vs J.N. Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (W.P. No. 86

of 1999 decided on 11.03.1999) by the Hon'ble High Court of

Madhya Pradesh; and

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (11 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

(b) Surendra Kumar & Ors Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B.Civil Writ

Petition No. 751, 753, 775 & 758 of 1968, decided on 31.10.1968)

by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

8. This Court observes that the petitioners possess Post

Graduation Degree in their respective subjects from the SHUATS,

which is recognized by the ICAR. The petitioners have filled in the

application form for Ph.D. Degree Entrance Examination-2023

from the State Agriculture Universities as per the General

Guidelines for the Ph.D. Entrance for the Session 2023. The

petitioners appeared in the examination in question and qualified

as per the score, whereafter the petitioners were allotted the

respondent-College(s); the petitioners have also duly completed

all the admission formalities and procedures. The respondent-

College(s) issued office orders, whereby the petitioners were

directed to report for completion of the course work at the

College of Agriculture, Bikaner.

9. Thereafter, the Dean, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Sri

Ganganagar after receiving the direction from the JET Coordinator,

Ph.D Entrance Examination-2023 cancelled the admission of the

petitioners vide the impugned communication(s).

10. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to

reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abha George & Ors. Vs.

All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) & Anr (W.P.

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (12 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

(C) 12263/2021 & CM Appl.38369/2021, decided on

02.02.2022), as hereunder:

"Analysis

13. In the undisputed factual situation narrated above, the question which arises for consideration is whether the admission of a candidate, even if he/she is erroneously admitted, is liable to be cancelled in the absence of any wrongdoing or default on the part of the candidate. This question has been considered in several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court. Three judgments of the Supreme Court, and one of this Court, are particularly instructive for adjudication of the present dispute.

14. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University (1986) Suppl. SCC 740 , the Supreme Court was concerned with a question of cancellation of admissions in engineering courses in Karnataka University. During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, the petitioners were permitted to continue their studies in the college. The petitions were, however, ultimately dismissed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court also came to the conclusion that the candidates were ineligible for admission. However, on the question of whether the students, having been admitted, should be permitted to continue their studies, the Court held in their favour for the following reasons:-

"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

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (13 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

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. It is quite possible that the appellants did not know that neither the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan nor the first year BSc examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognised as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre- University Education Board, Bangalore. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year BSc examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these engineering colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this Judgment, allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. But we do feel that against the erring engineering colleges the Karnataka University should take appropriate action because the managements of these engineering colleges have not only admitted students ineligible for admission but thereby deprived an equal number of eligible students from getting admission to the engineering degree course. We also endorse the directions given by the learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his Judgment with a view to preventing admission of ineligible students."

16. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 399, is also on similar lines. In that case, the Supreme Court did not accept the

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (14 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

explanation of the concerned university that the candidate had been mistakenly admitted, but also clarified that even if that had been the case, the principle in Rajendra Prasad Mathur, would have been followed as the candidate was not at fault.

17. In Javed Akhtar (supra), a co-ordinate bench of this Court considered a case where the petitioners' candidature was accepted for appearing in the entrance examinations, and they were admitted to the concerned institution. Their admissions were cancelled after they had attended the classes for one month. The facts of the case are very similar to the present case. The question framed by the Court was in the following terms:-

"21. ... This is not disputed that the petitioners filled the forms for appearing in the entrance examination and gave their correct date of birth. The forms of the petitioners were considered and they were allowed to appear in the examination. After their names appeared, they were called for counselling and after verifying the documents and certificates of the petitioners, they were given admission. The petitioners were issued identity cards after accepting the fees for the course from them and the petitioners were allowed to attend classes for a month and thereafter by communication dated 8th August, 2006 the admission of the petitioners have been cancelled. Whether the respondent no. 1 can be allowed to cancel the admission mid term in the facts and circumstances, when the petitioners have not concealed any thing nor produced any documents to mislead the respondent no. 1? Whether the respondent no. 1 will be estopped from canceling the admission of the petitioners in the facts and circumstances?"

The Court answered the question thus:-

"38. Therefore, while granting the admission if the academic body has acted inattentively and mechanically, then they cannot be allowed to take the plea that the admission was never valid and that the petitioners' were ineligible from the very inception and knowing the ineligibility they applied for admission. The respondents cannot be allowed to

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (15 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

cancel the admission at their own convenience at any time of the year without considering the fact that if they cancel the admission after the session has started then the entire year of the petitioners will be spoiled as the petitioners would not be in a position to take admission in any other college/University. If this fact of their ineligibility for admission was conveyed to them at the very start they would have taken admission in some other college/University.

39. In such situation, in view of the decision in Sangeeta's case(Supra), the petitioners cannot be penalized for the negligence of authorities. It is important to appreciate that the petitioners in the facts and circumstances cannot be accused of making any false statement or suppressing any relevant fact before anybody. They clearly mentioned their Date of Birth in the application form for admission, and are not guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation. It was the duty of the University to have scrutinized the application form and the certificates thoroughly before granting admission to the petitioners and permitting them to attend the classes and not having done so they cannot cancel the admission thereafter. By accepting the application form and subsequently granting admission representation was made by the respondents that the petitioners' were eligible for admission and the petitioners' acting upon the same took admission and thus the petitioners' suffered a detriment. Had the respondents not made the representation that the application had been approved and granted admission the petitioners' would have applied and taken admission else- where. Therefore the respondents are estopped from pleading that the petitioners were not entitled to a seat from the inception and that the admission is void ab initio and that the admission without fulfilment of the eligibility criteria is a nullity.

40. In the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong and cannot be permitted to take the plea that under the prospectus they had the power to

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (16 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

cancel the admission of ineligible student and the principle of estoppel will operate against them. The respondents are estopped from cancelling the admission of the petitioners' and further from preventing them from pursuing the 'Pre Tib' course in the present facts and circumstances."

18. Applying these authorities in the present case, it appears that the petitioners' documents were accepted by the respective centres of AIIMS, despite the fact that their qualifying examination results were declared one week later than stipulated in the Prospectus. The petitioners have prosecuted their studies for almost two months prior to issuance of the impugned OM dated 18.10.2021. There is no allegation that the petitioners had misrepresented or concealed any information from AIIMS - indeed, there cannot be, as the qualifying examination was conducted by AIIMS itself. Applying the observations of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur, in the present case also, the blame lies more upon the institution than the petitioners. The candidates applied; their results were declared by AIIMS, New Delhi; those results were submitted to the regional centres to which they have been assigned, and they were granted admission. Their admissions were cancelled after they had spent almost two months on the course. The judgment of this Court in Javed Akhtar, in fact, goes further to hold that an academic institution cannot be permitted to cancel admissions after the course had started, at any time during the year, due to prejudice that would be caused to the candidates who were admitted as they would by then be unable to take admission in any other university to which they may have been admitted.

19. The issue thus appears to me to be squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court. Although there were express representations of the institutions to the candidates regarding their eligibility in some of the cases, I am of the view that the absence of such an express representation does not make much difference in the facts of the present case. No further representation was expected or required as there was no doubt as to the substantive conditions

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (17 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

of eligibility stipulated in the Prospectus, although the result had come one week later than stipulated.

20. While considering the equitable relief to be granted in these circumstances, I also requested Mr. Parashar to take instructions as to the fate of the seats which would be released by the petitioners if the impugned OM were to be upheld. Mr. Parashar, upon instructions, fairly submitted that due to the lapse in time after the start of the course, those seats would remain vacant."

11. This Court further observes that it is an admitted position

that the petitioners Post Graduation Degrees are valid and the

same have also been recognized by the respondents.

12. This Court also observes that earlier in the year 2022, the

guidelines for Ph.D entrance examinations were same as that of

year 2023 and the respondents allowed admission of the students

who have obtained the Post Graduation Degree from the SHUATS,

and thus, now only on the basis of the meeting dated 12.01.2023,

the respondents cannot discriminate between the earlier students

and the present petitioners (students).

13. This Court further observes that even in the impugned order,

the respondents have clearly stated about cancellation of the

admission of the petitioners, because they did not fulfill the

essential qualifications as mentioned at point no.2.1 of the

guidelines in question, but in the year 2022, the respondents have

given admission in the Course in question to the similarly situated

students of the SHUATS.

13.1. This Court also observes that while taking the impugned

decision, the respondents could not make a clear distinction

between the earlier guidelines and the guidelines of 2023, and

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (18 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

thus, fell into error in declaring the petitioners ineligible, as per

the point 2.1 of the General Guidelines Ph.D Entrance Examination

2023.

The said point 2.1 of the General Guidelines Ph.D Entrance

Examination 2023 is reproduced as hereunder:-

"EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION:

• Only those candidates who have their Master's degree in respective faculty subject and fulfill the qualification as prescribed as under are eligible to apply.

• The candidates who have passed the M.Sc. in the respective subject from any State Agriculture Universities with 6.5 OGPA or equivalent. Incase degree awarded below 6.5 OGPA by State Agriculture Universities, 5% relaxation will be allowed to candidate belonging to SC/ST/OBC (Non creamy layer)/MBC/SAP/EWS Category. The candidates taking the advantage of 5% relaxation will not be considered in UR category.

• Candidates who have appeared at any of the aforesaid qualifying examinations and whose results have not been declared before the commencement of the entrance examination shall provisionally be allowed to appear in the examination. The result of the examination i.e. Degree/Provisionaldegree and Transcript is essential at the time of option filling and reporting in the college.

• Candidates who have completed their PG Degree programme through Pre-PG/National level/State level entrance examination or the candidates completed their PG degree programme from SAUs and their constituent colleges of Rajasthan. • The candidates must have completed four-year and two- year PG degree programme for admission in Ph.D. (Home Science) from any recognized university."

However, a bare perusal of the Guidelines of the year 2022 and

the Guidelines of the year 2023, makes it clear that the language

used in both the guidelines is exactly the same.

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (19 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

14. This Court further observes that the respondents cannot

discriminate between the similarly situated students in the same

examination, when the admissions were granted as per the

guidelines in vogue at the relevant time. This Court also observes

that the petitioners are meritorious students, were duly allotted

the College(s), and the necessary formalities and procedures have

also been completed by the petitioners, including deposition of fee

etc.; they have also duly complied with the direction issued by the

respondents to report for completion of the course work; however,

thereafter, the respondents have taken the impugned actions,

which are not sustainable in the eye of law.

15. This Court further observes that the petitioners have valid

Post Graduation Degrees and they appeared in the examination in

question as per the guidelines for Ph.D Entrance Examination, and

are even fully eligible for the same, as per the guidelines in

question. Therefore, the impugned communications/orders

regarding the cancellation of the admission of the petitioners are

not justified in law.

16. The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the respondents

do not render any assistance to their case.

17. Thus, in light of the above observations and looking into the

factual matrix of the case, the present petitions are allowed.

17.1. Accordingly, in S.B. Writ petition No. 14731/2023, the

impugned office order dated 16.09.2023 (Annexure-17) is

quashed and set aside; in S.B. Writ Petition No. 14855/2023,

the impugned office order dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure-17) is

quashed and set aside and; in S.B. Writ Petition No.

[2023:RJ-JD:31988] (20 of 20) [CW-14669/2023]

14669/2023, the impugned office orders dated 18.09.2023

(Annexure-17) are quashed and set aside; and thus, the

respondents are directed to immediately restore the admissions of

the petitioners in the Course(s) in question. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)