The High Court dismissed a writ petition contesting admissions made by the petitioner college to students unauthorized by the central counseling committee. The court held such admissions were void ab initio and barred equitable relief due to the petitioner's failure of clean hands and estoppel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39234 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sai College Of Education Vijay Sagar And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitabh Singh,Anand Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. None for the petitioners even when the list is revised.
2. Shri Sharad Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
3. It is submitted by Shri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4, that petitioners' case is that they had given admission to 25 students in open counseling and, therefore, the respondent Nos.3 & 4 are obliged to regularize their admissions and give them a chance to appear in the examination as a regular student enrolled in B.Ed. course.
4. Shri Rohit Pandey submits that the fact of the matter is that respondent Nos.3 & 4 is the nodal-agency for conducting entrance examination to various colleges imparting B.Ed. education for the State of UP and all admissions are made through on-line counselling. He fairly submits that if any seats after the centralized counselling remain vacant, then colleges have an option to fill such seats from their local resources, for which purpose, 12, 13 and 14th July, 2019, were the dates prescribed for the aforesaid purpose.
5. Shri Pandey submits that though through centralized counselling, 25 students, belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category, were recommended for admission to the petitioner-college, but petitioner-college, in violation of the recommendations of the Central Counselling Committee instead of giving admission to the recommended candidates, on its own, filled up the seats of B.Ed. course on the bogie of there being withdrawal of zero-fee facility for admission to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students.
6. Shri Pandey submits that issue of withdrawal of zero fee is
different and that could not have been a ground for denying admission to the students recommended by the respondent No.4. It is submitted that petitioner could have raised this issue of payment of fees or as to who shall reimburse the fees of these students, who were recommended by respondent No.4, but in any case petitioner was not authorized to fill the seats on its own. Thus, there is violation of the counselling rules and the procedure laid down by respondent No.4 rendering the admissions given by the petitioner-college to such unauthorized students who were not recommended through centralized counselling as illegal and void ab initio.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 submits that petitioner has also filed instructions for direct admission as Annexure-3 and according to these instructions, petitioner was not entitled to supersede the list of recommended candidates by the Joint Entrance Examination UP B.Ed.2019-21. It is also submitted that on 24.07.2019 itself, petitioner-college was informed by the Registrar/State Nodal Officer of respondent No.3-University that any admission granted in B.Ed.2019 session directly at the level of the college shall not be acceptable. In this communication (Annexure-11), it is clearly mentioned that admission to B.Ed. course of only those students will be admissible, who have been recommended in first, second and pool counselling round or who had deposited fees directly for on-line counselling in the concerned college.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 also submits that issue of zero fees was notified by the Director, Social Welfare vide D.O. dated 20th August, 2019 (Annexure-15), whereas admission process had already come to an end in July, 2019, therefore, this subsequent notification cannot be used as alibi to overlook the candidates recommended by the Central Counselling Committee, i.e., respondent No.4. It is further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 01.11.2019, which is a speaking order and makes a mention that admission granted by the petitioner-college in violation of the rules and regulations are not acceptable.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 also submits that a decision was taken by the Advisory Committee and the Co-ordination Committee to the Uttar Pradesh B.Ed. Joint Entrance Examination, 2019 that the seats allotted to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes candidates should
not be vacated during the pool counselling and direct admission stage. It is submitted that even in the previous year, Lucknow University had conducted the entrance examination and had not allowed vacation of any of the seats allotted to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes candidate, therefore, college with a view to fill seats of B.Ed. course on their own by coercing the students coming from weaker sections to deposit full fees, cannot be approved. Thus, admission granted without following the procedure cannot be given seal of approval.
10. Learned counsel for the State supports the contention of learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4.
11. After hearing arguments and going through the record, it is apparent that there are guidelines for counselling of B.Ed.201920 as are annexed with the counter affidavit dated 2.03.2020 filed by respondent Nos.3 & 4 as Annexure CA-3 and the colleges were bound to follow these guidelines, therefore, admissions, which were given to the students without following the guidelines for pool counselling of B.Ed.-2019 and the rules framed by the respondent Nos.3 & 4 cannot be given a seal of approval.
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners appears and submits that petition has been rendered infructuous because petitioners have passed first year of examination and have taken admission in the second year.
13. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted because the admission, which is void ab initio , cannot be regularized merely because students have been allowed to continue their course on the strength of some interim order, which is passed on 05.12.2019.
14. In any case, petitioner is required to show the locus and compliance of the rules and regulations framed by the respondent No.4. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the students, who have been admitted against the recommendations made by the respondent No.4 through central counselling, were admitted in compliance of the regulations for admission to the course on instructions for degree in education, in affiliated and constituent colleges.
15. Since, no material is produced on record to show that the admissions given by the petitioner are in consequence with these rules and regulations, they are void ab initio and cannot be
given a seal of approval merely on humanitarian ground that the students have pursued their studies for a period of one year.
16. Petitioner is not entitled to the equitable relief in writ jurisdiction as it has not approached the High Court with clean hands. In fact, principle of estoppel will be applicable inasmuch as there will be impediment on the petitioner from claiming a relief in consistent with his previous conduct of not following the rules and regulations framed by the respondent Nos.3 & 4 for conduct of counselling. "Estoppel" is a rule of equity to prevent a person from taking advantage of a condition or situation with, with knowledge of the facts, he has so conducted himself as to lead the other party to believe that he would not do as he did. It is, thus, an appeal to the conscience of the court and ordinarily involves some element of wrong doing on the part of person sought to be stopped, which would render it inequitable to permit him to take advantage of his prior conduct.
17. In the facts and circumstances, this principle will squarely be applicable and petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong doing.
18. If this Court accepts the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners then it will be failing in its duty to see adherence of rules and regulations and also rule of law. It will then become a party to the misdeeds of the petitioners, who has apparently and fraudulently violated the guidelines and rules and regulations of respondent Nos.3 & 4 and such violation cannot be given seal of approval. Therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed .
Order Date :- 8.12.2020 LN Tripathi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether admissions granted by the college to students unauthorized by the central counselling committee are void ab initio.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to equitable relief previously granted to students allowed to continue their course.
Whether the principle of estoppel bars the petitioner from claiming relief by taking advantage of its own wrongdoing.
Sai College Of Education Vijay Sagar
State Of U.P.
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
