Dismissed

Dayal Rastogi College of Education v. State of Hry and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2008CWP/5564/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a university’s refusal to register students admitted after the centralized counseling cut-off. The bench held that colleges cannot bypass university regulatory control to fill vacancies post-counseling to maintain academic standards and merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; university directed to reject the applicants’ request to be allowed to take examinations.

Dayal Rastogi College of Education Vs… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 5564 of 2008

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 5564 of 2008

¶5

Date of decision: 6^th May, 2008

¶6

Deen Dayal Rastogi College of Education through its Chairman

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryana and another

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶12

Present: Ms.Ranjana Shahi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State.

¶14

Dr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Anurag Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2 (University).

¶15

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.

¶16

Vide this common judgment, we will dispose off three writ petitions, i.e., CWP 5564 of 2008; CWP 6225 of 2008 and CWP 6179 of 2008. Since the controversy involved is similar, we have extracted facts from CWP 5564 of 2008.

¶17

Deen Dayal Rastogi College of Education through its Chairman, Khandewla, Hailey Mandi, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana has filed present writ petition praying that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing respondent No.2, Maharishi Daya Nand University Rohtak (hereinafter called as ‘respondent-university) to issue Roll Numbers to the five students, who had completed their course for the session 2007-08 for obtaining one year degree of B.Ed. It has been further prayed that the respondent-university ought to allow five students to undertake

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No. 5564 of 2008

¶19

¶20

examination to be conducted by the respondent-university in the coming month. A writ in the nature of certiorari has also been sought seeking quashing of order dated 11^th March, 2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent-university, wherein the claim of the petitioner-college that five students be allowed to undertake the examination has been rejected and their examination fees have been returned on the ground that their admission was made without students participation in counseling conducted by the respondent-university. Respondent-university vide Annexure P-1 has refused to regularize the admission of these five students as the same was made in contravention of rules/ procedure of admission. Respondent-university in Annexure P-1 has also stated that variety of irregularities have been committed by the College in admission of these five students, therefore, they are not eligible to undertake the examination. Therefore, their examination fees along with documents and the bank drafts were returned.

¶21

Briefly stated, petitioner-college was affiliated with the respondent- Maharishi Daya Nand University Rohtak for conducting oneyear degree course of B.Ed. for session 2007-08. The petitioner-college has been recognized by the National Council of Teachers Education and affiliated with respondent-university and permitted to allow intake of 100 students. It is further averred in the writ petition that out of 100 selected students in the counseling, only 95 students reported and five seats remained vacant. Petitioner-college is said to have made a communication to the respondent-university that they be permitted to fill up the vacancies but the respondent-university neither allocated students nor responded to the correspondence made to them by the petitioner-college. The petitionercollege at its own level, relying upon the guidelines issued in year 2003 by the Department of Technical Education, Government of Haryana, granted admission to the five students. The petitioner-college states that at the time

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No. 5564 of 2008

¶23

¶24

of giving admission a request was made to the respondent-university that an Observer for making admission be appointed. It has been urged in the writ petition that in case five seats were allowed to remain vacant, the petitioner-college, which has been run by educational society, will not be able to recover the costs incurred and losses will be suffered. It has been stated before us that for admission, the petitioner-college submitted a fee of Rs.12,500/- pertaining to these five students vide letter dated 31^st December, 2007. The demand draft of the above said amount was accepted by the respondent-university. Thereafter, examination fee was also sent by way of demand draft and on 7^th January, 2008, petitionercollege submitted annual return for the year 2007-08, in which details of the five students were also given. It has been pleaded that suddenly, impugned action of the respondent-university on 11.03.2008 to reject the admission of these five students has caused irreparable loss to the petitioner-college.

¶25

This Court had issued notice of motion on April 3, 2008. Dr.Balram Gupta along with Mr.Anurag Goel has filed the written statement and the matter has been argued by the counsel for the parties. In the written statement, respondent-university has taken the stand that university was declared competent authority by the State Government for conducting B.Ed. Common Entrance Text, 2007 through centralized counseling for making admissions to B.Ed. regular course in all the educational colleges in the State of Haryana for the session 2007-08. It has been stated therein that on the basis of performance in the entrance test, merit list was drawn for holding counseling to make admission in various colleges of education. The self-financing colleges in the Haryana State also consented to fill up their seats from the merit list drawn by the respondent-university. It has been stated that the first counseling had to conclude from 5^th September, 2007 to 21^st September, 2007 and the second counseling was scheduled

¶26

Civil Writ Petition No. 5564 of 2008

¶27

¶28

from 23^rd September, 2007 to 29^th September, 2007. It has been stated that the B.Ed. – CET Prospectus 2007-08 contained the following provision.

¶29

“No Counseling shall be held and no admissions shall be made after 30.9.2007. In case any seats are left vacant upto 30.9.2007, these shall not be allowed to be filled after this date. Also, if any new College of Education is granted recognition by NCTE in the State of Haryana, after 30.9.2007, the same shall be considered for affiliation and admission in the next academic session i.e. 2008-09.”

¶30

It has been further pleaded in the written statement that after the cut off date i.e., 30.09.2007, the cases for affiliation of new educational colleges recognized by National Council for Teachers Education were not processed, considered and no admission was given. However, two selffinanced colleges preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 14963 of 2007 and 14941 of 2007 and sought direction from this Court that they be permitted to fill up the vacancies. This Court on 03.10.2007 passed the following interim direction:

¶31

“The grievance of the petitioner is that though centralized admissions are being held and last date for completing the admission has been fixed but no mechanism has been worked out for giving opportunity to all the available students even though vacant seats are available. Such a centralized counseling does not serve the purpose for which centralized admission are held.

¶32

We have heard the counsel for the University and the State. No reply has been filed so far and arguments addressed do not meet the challenge in the petition.

¶33

In view of the above, the time being crucial, we direct the respondents to take immediate further steps to give opportunity to all the available students at the earliest so as to fill up the vacant seats.

¶34

List again on 12.10.2007.

¶35

Let the reply be filed before the next date of hearing.”

¶36

Civil Writ Petition No. 5564 of 2008

¶37

¶38

It has been stated by the respondent-university that in pursuance of above interim direction dated 03.10.2007, a further counseling for admission was held from 7^th October, 2007 to 12^th October, 2007 and the counseling which continued upto 13.10.2007 in respect of all colleges of education, there was zero position of vacancies in all the participating colleges of education. When the counseling concluded on 13.10.2007 and this position was placed before this Court on 18.10.2007, due to which above said two writ petitions No.14963 of 2007 and 14941 of 2007 were rendered infructuous. It has been stated by the respondentuniversity in the written statement that the admission process stood concluded on 13.10.2007 and thereafter no admission was allowed. It has been further stated in the written statement that there is no provision for any of the colleges of education, who participated in the counseling, to fill up the vacancies at their own level, which had arisen for the reason that some students had not reported after the counseling.

¶39

During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by Dr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr.Anurag Goel that the claim of the college that they made admission of these five students on 26^th October, 2007 is palpably wrong as the names of these five students have not figured in the list of students which was received by the university on 12^th November, 2007. For the first time, names of these five students have been mentioned in a communication dated 26^th October, 2007, which was received by the university in January, 2008. It has been contended that had the admission been made on 26^th October, 2007, the names of these five students ought to have included in the list submitted on 12^th November, 2007. Therefore, admission of these five students was made in the last week of December or in early January as the communication purportedly written on 26^th October, 2007 has been received in January 2008. It has been further submitted that the college

¶40

Civil Writ Petition No. 5564 of 2008

¶41

¶42

cannot be allowed to make backdoor entry of the students as merit has to be adhered to. Dr.Balram Gupta has further contended that if the colleges are permitted to make admission in this fashion, then after the counseling those students, who are much lower in the merit can be admitted by the colleges without any regulatory/ supervisory mechanism of the university, which remained in force till conclusion of the counseling.

¶43

It has been further urged that in case this practice is permitted, colleges will be able to sell the vacant seats to non-meritorious students.

¶44

Ms.Ranjana Shahi appearing for the petitioner-college stated that after the counseling, due to non-reporting of few students, certain seats became vacant and in order to recover the costs, admission has been given to these five students. Therefore, it is too late, when the final examination is going to be held, for the respondent-university to refuse these students to undertake examination.

¶45

Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the firm opinion that colleges cannot be permitted to make admissions after the cut off date of counseling without supervisory and regulatory control of the university, which was a nodal university for making admissions. The very concept of the entrance examination drawing up merit list and to grant admission on the basis of the merit list in open competition will be set to naught in case colleges at their own make admission after the cut off date. Furthermore, there is serious dispute between the college and the university as on which date admission was granted. The apprehension of the university that the admission was granted much later and students have not attended complete course cannot be said to be unfounded, especially when names of these students reached the university for the first time in January, 2008, while the admission process stood concluded on 13^th October, 2007. The respondent-university, to ensure academic excellence, has to take all necessary measures, i.e., cut off date is strictly

¶46

Civil Writ Petition No. 5564 of 2008

¶47

¶48

adhered to, merit in admission is ensured and only those students are permitted to take examination, who have attended the courses as per the academic calendar in force by the university. We cannot allow the standards being kept by the university to be compromised, simply because a college will not be able to recover its expenses.

¶49

Hence, we find no merit and dismiss all the three writ petitions.

¶50

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶51

[ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE

¶52

May ____, 2008 rps

Dayal Rastogi College of Education v. State of Hry and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayal Rastogi College of Education v. State of Hry and Anr.

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

District Family Welfare Offier Vs Presiding Officer and Anr.

Charanjeev Atwal Vs Baba Farid University and Ors.

Paramvir Singh Vs the Pb State Warehousing Corp & Anr.

P S E B Vs Regional Labour Commissioner and Ors.

Surinder Syal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Charu Singhal and Ors. Vs Kurukshetra Uni. and Ors.