Allowed

V.K Jain College of Education v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2018WRIC/16688/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the Registrar's order rejecting a minority educational institution's claim for admission results. The court held the order was perverse for ignoring cash book entries and bank statements proving fees were received before the cut-off date, remanding for a fresh inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order and remanded to the third respondent to pass a fresh order within four weeks considering cash book entries and evidence.

V.K Jain College of Education Vs State of U.P… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16688 of 2018 Petitioner :- V.K Jain College Of Education Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S B Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Vivek Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant matter is being disposed of finally.

¶6

The petitioner, which is a minority educational institution, seeks to assail the order dated 25.3.2018 passed by the Registrar, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra. The order has been passed in compliance of direction issued by this Court on 29.11.2016 in Writ-C No.56345 of 2016 filed by the same petitioner, wherein the grievance was that the university had not declared the result of 50 students admitted by the petitioner institution in B.Ed. Session 2013-14 under the management quota. It seems that the writ petition was opposed by learned counsel for the University on the ground that the admissions of students under the management quota appears to have been made after cut-off date i.e., 16.9.2013. Having regard to the said plea, this Court remitted the matter to the University to examine as to whether the students were admitted under the management quota before the cut-off date fixed in this regard or not.

¶7

It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner institution had an approved intake of 100 and being a minority institution, it was entitled to fill up 50% of the seats of its own. The dispute in the instant petition pertains to fifty students admitted by the petitioner institution under the management quota. These students were issued admit cards and they also duly appeared in the examination.

¶8

¶9

The impugned order records that the fee receipts evidence that fees was realised from the students between 29.7.2013 and 31.7.2013. However, only Rs.16,60,000/- was deposited by the institution in its saving bank account on 31.7.2013, whereas the fees of fifty students at the rate of Rs.51,250/- each student would come to Rs.25,62,500/-. The order further records that Rs.8,00,000/- and 8,60,000/- were withdrawn in cash on 1.8.2013 and 2.8.2013 respectively and again Rs.8,00,000/- was deposited on 2.8.2013. It has accordingly been inferred that the fees of fifty students is not in deposit. It has also been observed that in case the fees received from the students was retained in cash, then cash and ledger books should have been produced. In the same vein, it has been observed that the institution has failed to disclose any provision which entitled it to keep cash of more than Rs.10,000/- with it. Accordingly, the conclusion drawn in the impugned order is that the institution has failed to prove that it had admitted these fifty students before 16.9.2013, the cut-off date.

¶10

Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S.B. Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly perverse and is based on conjectures. According to him, the cash book was duly filed alongwith the reply to notice dated 5.2.2018. In this regard, the assertion made in paragraph 22 of the writ petition is being relied upon. He further submitted that apart from depositing Rs.16,60,000/- on 31.7.2013, a further sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was deposited on 1.8.2013, which together adds up to fees of forty eight students. He points out that fees of two remaining students was received by cheques dated 16.8.2013 and 23.8.2013. This, according to him, is evident from the statement of bank account, which was duly produced before the Registrar.

¶11

¶12

A perusal of cash book, which has been annexed with the writ petition, reveals that from 29.7.2013 to 31.7.2013, there is entry of cash receipt of fee of Rs.51,250/- from as many as forty eight students. The name of these students are also mentioned in the cash book. The opening balance of cash on 29.7.2013 was Rs.9,02,724.45 and the closing balance on 31.7.2013 was Rs.33,69,454.45. After taking into consideration Rs.16,60,000/- deposited in the bank on 31.7.2013, and certain other payments, the opening balance on 1.8.2013 was Rs.17,09,159.45. It is also evident from the entries dated 1.8.2013 and 2.8.2013 that cash withdrawal of Rs.8,00,000/- and 8,60,000/- has been duly entered and consequently, the cash in hand went up Rs.33,69,159.45 on 2.8.2013 and after deducting Rs.8,00,000/- deposited in cash on 2.8.2013, the remaining amount was Rs.25,69,159.45.

¶13

Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University very fairly admits that the cash book has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. He also does not dispute that if Rs.8,00,000/- deposited on 1.8.2013 is added to Rs.16,60,000/-, it duly accounts for the fees of forty eight students. It is also not disputed that from the statement of bank account, it is also evident that fees tendered by two students, by cheques, was also deposited in the same account. This Court further notices that even before 29.7.2013, the date since which the fee was realised, the institution was having Rs.9 lacs and odd as cash in its hand. Thus, the institution, which is a self financed institution, was maintaining sufficient liquidity. Even if it was contrary to financial discipline, it was not sufficient to repel the claim of receipt of fees by cash. The students, if they had paid the fees well before the cut-off date, were not

¶14

¶15

supposed to enquire whether the institution had retained the same with it as cash or deposited the same on 1.8.2013. In any event, the deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- on 1.8.2013 was much before the cut-off date i.e., 16.9.2013.

¶16

Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel further submitted that according to the instructions issued by the Counselling University, every college was supposed to display its banks account and its name on its website and it was incumbent upon the students who were admitted through counselling to deposit their fees directly with CBS Branch of such bank. According to him, the college was not supposed to accept the fees in cash. However, he does not dispute that in the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner institution has not been negated on the said ground but solely on the grounds discussed above. For accepting the contention, it has also to be examined whether this provision would only apply to students admitted through counselling or also to those who were directly admitted under the management quota.

¶17

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Registrar for passing a fresh order after taking into consideration the entries in the cash book and the other evidence, keeping in mind the observations made above.

¶18

This exercise shall be conducted by the third respondent within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.5.2018 skv

¶21

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

V.K Jain College of Education v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K Jain College of Education v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avadhnarayan Rai and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Saif Ali Farooqui Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jai Maa Khandwari Shikshan Evam Parishikshan Seva Samiti and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Madarsa Hanfia Faizul Uloom Ahle Sunnat and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others