informed us that there are presently two Associate Professors and one Assistant Professor, i.e. a total of three teachers. In the affidavit which we have before this Court, it is submitted that one of the Associate Professors will retire shortly on attaining the age of superannuation. In any case, the University will have one Associate Professor and one Assistant Professor i.e. two teachers. We have further been informed that there are only five students in the postgraduate course in Persian and two Ph.D scholars. In other words, there are only seven students in the University and there are presently three teachers to teach them. It is not the case of the University that they are going to discontinue with the services of these teachers, even though it has been submitted before this Court that the University is actively thinking of discontinuing the “B.A. Honours in Persian” in future. This may be so but the fact remains that when the admitted position is that the University has presently three teachers, their denial of admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner does not seem to be reasonable for the simple reason that there are enough teachers in the University to teach Persian. Teachers are there to teach. It is not the case of the University that it is contemplating to discontinue the services of these teachers. It is also not the case of the University that they are contemplating to teach only M.A. (Persian) or Ph.D programmes in future. One more students in the University for undergraduate course in Persian language, will therefore, not matter and the University has absolutely no reason to deny admission to the students, particularly when there are teachers existing in the University to impart teaching of Persian. Nothing has been stated before this Court by the learned counsel for the University which may even remotely suggest that the University would be breaking any law or even a UGC guideline if it teaches only one student in an undergraduate class. Once the University had advertised the course and a student has sought admission and he/she is eligible for grant of admission, the University cannot deny admission to a student for reasons that one student is too less, and it is contemplating to discontinue the course in future as this is the only reason which has come before us. It is true that the University had given a condition in the advertisement that if 50% of the seats remains unfilled they will not have the course. But this technical advantage cannot be given to the University. Here, the conditions are not to be read as it ought to be in a fiscal matter or a commercial contract. We are dealing here with issues of “learning”, and higher education! Simply put when the University has enough teachers, can it deny “education” to a student who seeks to learn the subject, and has all the qualifications? The answer would be No. The University does not have a justifiable reason to deny admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner.
