Praneeta Rathore (Miss) vs College Of Agriculture ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8365 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:34406]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14045/2023

1. Praneeta Rathore (Miss), Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Galwa Via Koshithal, Tehsil Raipur, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

2. Dilip Choudhary S/o Shri Baalu Ram Choudhary, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Kudli, Tehsil Phagi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Rahul Godara S/o Shri Sandeep Godara, Aged About 25 Years, R/o House No. 1D, Chhoti, Ward No. 11, Sadhu Wali, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. Dean, College Of Agriculture, Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Beechwal Bikaner

3. Registrar, Agriculture University Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

4. Coordinator, Jet/pre-Pg/ph.d. Entrance Examination -

2023, Agriculture University Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Nihar Jain
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

11/10/2023

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the

controversy involved in the present writ petitions is no more res-

integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in

Anuradha (Miss) & Ors. Vs. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture

University & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14669/2023;

[2023:RJ-JD:34406] (2 of 9) [CW-14045/2023]

alongwith other connected petitions on 05.10.2023. The relevant

portion of the judgment reads as under:

"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. (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

[2023:RJ-JD:34406] (3 of 9) [CW-14045/2023]

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:34406] (4 of 9) [CW-14045/2023]

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:34406] (5 of 9) [CW-14045/2023]

from the very inception and knowing the ineligibility they applied for admission. The respondents cannot be allowed to 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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:34406] (6 of 9) [CW-14045/2023]

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 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:34406] (7 of 9) [CW-14045/2023]

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 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:34406] (8 of 9) [CW-14045/2023]

• 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.

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. 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."

2. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in light of the

decision rendered vide order dated 05.10.2023 passed in

Anuradha (Miss)'s case (supra) on the same terms. The impugned

order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure-15) is quashed and set aside

and the respondents are directed to immediately restore the

[2023:RJ-JD:34406] (9 of 9) [CW-14045/2023]

admissions of the petitioners in the Course(s) in question. All

pending applications also stand disposed of.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

261-Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)