Dismissed

Archit Bansal v. Ibs, Hyderabad (Indian Business School)

Telangana HC15 Oct 2014WP/19319/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, admitted to MBA program provisionally, was denied third-semester registration after failing to submit graduation marks within the deadline. Despite securing marks, petitioner fell short of 50% UGC requirement. Court dismissed petition citing petitioner's false affidavit and undertaking to quit, finding the cancellation legal under UGC regulations.

What the court decided

AI extract

Archit Bansal Vs Ibs, Hyderabad (Indian… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.19319 of 2014

Date: 15-10-2014

Between:

Archit Bansal

.. Petitioner

AND

Indian Business School (IBS), Hyderabad, represented by its Registrar, Dontapally, Sankerpally Road, Hyderabad.

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.19319 of 2014

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in cancelling the admission of the petitioner after pursuing two semesters of MBA course and internship (2013-15) as irrational and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to pursue his MBA course without insisting on 50% of marks in the Graduation.

¶13

2. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for MBA course (2013-15) offered by the respondent University and was issued proceedings dated 05-06-2013 stating that he was enrolled into MBA program of Indian Business School (IBS), Hyderabad and was allotted Enrolment No.13BSPHH011065 directing to report for preparatory classes on

¶14

03-06-2013 with registration for admission dated 17-06-2013 and accordingly, he joined the course and paid the requisite fee along

¶15

with hostel fees. The petitioner was given provisional admission for two year full-time admission into MBA program at IBS, Hyderabad and was required to pay admission fee of Rs.80,000/by 24-05-2013 and accordingly, he paid the requisite fee and pursued his course. It is stated that after completion of second semester, the petitioner was sent for internship at India Infoline Limited, New Delhi where he has done his internship from 12-032014 to 24-05-2014 and the petitioner reported back at college on 02-06-2014 and also paid hostel fee of Rs.50,000/- for pursuing his third semester course, but the petitioner was not permitted to stay in the hostel or attend the classes without assigning any person. It is also stated that on 12-06-2014, the petitioner was forced to write a letter for withdrawal from the third semester classes on the oral assurance that he will be permitted to join in ICFAI University, Dehradun Unit without insisting on 50% of aggregate in the Degree and having no other alternative, he addressed a letter dated 12-062014 and subsequently, he came to know that his joining at Dehradun unit will not be to his benefit as the course and curriculum at Dehradun unit are different from the courses which are pursuing at IBS, Hyderabad. It is further stated that as per the prospectus, the eligibility criteria for MBA program is one should be a Graduate in any discipline with minimum of 50% marks with medium of instruction as English and the candidate should have minimum 15 years of regular education and the candidates who are in the final year Graduation Degree course were also made eligible to be in the allotment provided they should complete their Graduation before 31-05-2013 and for candidates whose degree results are not yet declared, the admission was treated to be provisional until they produce the marks sheet of Degree certificate, thereby they are eligible and the prospectus also

¶16

specify that last date for submission for proof of Graduation is 01-11-2013. It is further stated that the final year results were declared in July, 2013 and the same was informed to the college. It is further stated that the petitioner although applied for revaluation, he fell short of 1.4% and the petitioner was allotted to pursue his first and second semesters although the last date for provisional admission was 01-11-2013 and he was given impression that although his aggregate marks is less than 1.4% his admission was final and was permitted to write second semester exam. But, after completion of two semesters and internship, the petitioner was not allowed to continue in the third semester, which is arbitrary and illegal. It is further stated that the petitioner was a meritorious student and secured 80% in the 10^th and 90% in the 12^th standard and only in the Degree course, he could not write his final exams well as he fell sick. It is also stated that the prescription of 50% marks for the Graduation is only to ensure that the students who join the course will meet the parameters of MBA course and the bench mark of 50% is not mandatory for pursuing MBA course. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶17

3. The respondent filed its counter stating that the respondent is an unaided private educational institution declared as a deemed to be University by MHRD vide notification No.F.9-54/2006-U.3, dated 16-12-2008 under Section 3 of the U.G.C. Act, 1956 and IBS, Hyderabad has been accredited by NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) which is an autonomous body established by the University Grants Commission (UGC) of India to assess and accredit institutions of higher education in the country. It is stated that the respondent institution is a leading Business School in the country and is being given a grading within

¶18

first ten B-Schools in the country by Business magazines in the last five years. It is stated that the eligibility criteria for admission into MBA program at Hyderabad IBS is Graduation and facility provided to the students of final year Bachelor's Degree course to apply provided they complete their Graduation requirements including practical examinations /viva/assignments before 31^st May, 2013 and all applicants, who intend to join into the course, should complete minimum 15 years of regular education and the intending students who want to join into MBA program have to fulfil all the eligibility criteria mentioned in the prospectus and as per the prospectus of the respondent institution, the candidates in the final year Bachelor's Degree course are eligible to participate in the selection process, provided they complete their Graduation requirements before 31^st May, 2013 and for candidates whose degree results are not yet declared the admission will remain provisional until they produce marks sheets and Degree certificates establishing their eligibility. It is also stated that in the prospectus, it is clearly mentioned that fulfilling the eligibility criteria rests solely with the candidates and any inaccurate information/ misleading information will cause for withdrawal of admission offer and the fee paid by the candidates is nonrefundable in such instances.

¶19

4. The respondent stated that the petitioner applied for MBA program at Hyderabad and was given provisional admission into MBA program with a condition that he must submit all the certificates before 01-11-2013 and he sought for time for submitting proof of Graduation and requested permission to appear for first semester examination commencing from 07-10-2013 and the petitioner stated that he is yet to receive the proof of Graduation from the University of Delhi. When the respondent

¶20

institution is pressing for submission of certificates of Marks and Degree certificates, the petitioner requested time from time to time and the respondent considered the request of the petitioner and extended the time for submission of Marks Certificates and Degree Certificates and finally the respondent University refused to grant time as the second semester examinations were scheduled to be held from 10-02-2014 and at that juncture, the petitioner submitted a written undertaking on 28-01-2014 that he had not submitted proof of Graduation Certificate and Mark Sheets since he had applied for revaluation and the results of revaluation was yet to be announced. The petitioner has also given an undertaking to quit the program in case he fails to get 50% of marks as per the eligibility criteria, basing on which, the respondent-institution permitted him to appear for the second semester examinations followed by summer internship. Even by the date of registration for third semester i.e. 02-06-2014, the petitioner failed to submit proof of meeting eligibility criteria and in those circumstances, the respondent institution denied the registration for third semester and cancelled the provisional registration and the petitioner submitted a letter dated 12-06-2014 voluntarily withdrawing from the program and subsequently, he brought his father seeking alternative to cancellation of admission into IBS, Hyderabad and the respondent institution suggested to join at ICFAI, University at Dehradun by seeking transfer of admission. It is also stated that by taking advantage of the last date for submission of proof of Graduation as 01-11-2013, the petitioner tried his best to continue in MBA program by hook or crook and even by the date of commencement of second semester, the petitioner is aware that he is not having the requisite qualification for admission into MBA program and for

¶21

continuation of MBA program of the respondent institution. The respondent institution even waited till completion of second semester examination for production of certificates, but the petitioner revealed the truth that he is not having requisite eligibility for admission into MBA program. It is further stated that as per Clause 2.3 of UGC (Minimum Standards of Instructions for the Grant of the Masters Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003, the admission shall be made on merit on the basis of criteria notified by the University. It is further stated that the petitioner had never informed about his percentage of marks obtained in the qualifying examination or about the application for revaluation to the respondent and the petitioner's admission was throughout provisional and subject to submission of proof of marks sheets and degree certificate and as per the prospectus, the cut off date for the same was fixed as 01-11-2013 and the verification of eligibility criteria was scheduled from August, 2013 onwards and the onus of ensuring that the eligibility criteria is fulfilled rests with the petitioner. It is further stated that when the respondent refused to grant further time as the second semester examinations were scheduled to be held from 10-02-2014, the petitioner submitted a written undertaking dated 28-01-2014 admitting that he had not submitted proof of the Graduation certificate since he applied for revaluation and the results of revaluation was yet to be announced and the petitioner made an undertaking to quit the program in case he fails to get less than 50% marks as per the eligibility criteria, pursuant to which, the petitioner was permitted to appear for second semester examinations followed by summer internship, but the petitioner subsequently failed to produce the proof of eligibility criteria. It is further stated that no assurance was given to the petitioner to continue in the course in case he fails to fulfil the

¶22

eligibility criteria. It is further stated that as per clause 2.3 of UGC (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of the Master's Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 and as per the notified criteria, the respondent's action in cancelling the petitioner's admission for not fulfilling the eligibility criteria is in strict adherence to law and hence, the respondent institution sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶23

5. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was admitted into MBA program in the respondent University and was allowed to pursue two semesters, but subsequently he was not allowed to pursue his third semester on the ground that he is not having 50% of qualifying examination though the respondent University knows about the fact that the petitioner fell short of 1.4% than qualifying examination. He contends that the petitioner could have been discharged before 0111-2013, which is last date for submission of proof of Graduation. He further contends that the petitioner secured merit in the 10^th class and 12^th standard and even in two semesters the petitioner secured 7.75 CGPA aggregate and 48 units and that after completion of second semester, he was sent for internship at Indian Infoline Limited, New Delhi, as such, it is arbitrary on the part of the respondents to discontinue the petitioner from pursuing his third semester. He further contended that the petitioner was forced to give letter for withdrawing from the course and that the respondent asked the petitioner to join at ICFAI, Dehradun. He further contended that the syllabus in the respondent University and ICFAI University are different and that the respondent University received huge amounts towards fees which goes to show that though the petitioner fell short of 1.4% of marks than the required 50% of marks, still the petitioner could get CGPA of I and

¶24

II semesters of MBA course and prescription of 50% marks is not required and the respondent University could have allowed the petitioner to continue course instead of cancelling the admission. At any rate, having continued the petitioner beyond 01-11-2013, it is not open for the respondents to cancel his admission. The petitioner has spent huge amounts of money and time, if the petitioner is not allowed to pursue his third semester, it will affect his future prospects. He relied on the order dated 12-11-2013 in W.P.No.10892 of 2013 and batch.

¶25

On the other hand, Sri D. Chinnappa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the eligibility criteria for MBA course in the respondent University is Graduation in any discipline with a minimum of 50% marks, but in the present case, the petitioner is having less than 50% of the required eligibility though he undertook to produce the marks sheet within time, but the petitioner failed to produce the same. The petitioner also gave a letter dated 28-01-2014 admitting that he has not submitted the proof of Graduation Certificate since he has applied for revaluation and stated that the results of revaluation was yet to be announced and the petitioner made a categorical undertaking to quit the program in case he fails to get 50% of marks as per the eligibility criteria. He further stated that in the letter dated 12-062014, the petitioner withdrew from MBA program and the petitioner has suppressed the above facts and filed the writ petition and on that ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further contends that the admission shall be made on the basis of merit criteria notified by the University. As such, the respondent University cannot deviate from the criteria fixed by the UGC Regulations as any deviation of guidelines will amount to deviation of UGC Regulations. In support of his contentions, he relied on

¶26

Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen and other s^[1] , University Grants Commission and another v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar)^[2] a nd Union of India and others v. G.R. Ramakrishna and another^[3] .

¶27

It is an admitted fact that the criteria for admission into MBA course in the respondent University is Graduation in any discipline with a minimum of 50% marks with medium of instruction as English and it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is not having minimum 50% of required marks in the graduation and fell short of 1.4% of marks, which indicates that the petitioner is not qualified for being admitted in MBA program in the respondent-University. But, the petitioner was given provisional admission with a condition that he must submit all the certificates before 01-11-2013 and when the respondent authorities insisted the petitioner time and again for submission of proof of Graduation, the petitioner given an undertaking on 28-01-2014 that he had not submitted proof of Graduation Certificate and Mark sheets since he had applied for revaluation and stated that the results of the revaluation was yet to be announced. The petitioner also made a categorical undertaking to quit the program in case he fails to get 50% of marks as per the eligibility criteria, basing on which his request was accepted and this aspect was not stated in the writ affidavit, and as such, the petitioner suppressed the said fact and on that ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

In Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen and others (1 supra), the Apex Court held as follows:

¶29

“In M/s Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. Vs. H.B. Munshi & Anr. AIR 1970 SC 898; State of Haryana Vs. Karnal Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781; and Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 2284, this Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as petition containing

¶30

misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts."

¶31

In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bai & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 718; S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 166; and Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Bareily Division, Bareily & Ors. JT 2010 (3) SC 510, this Court held that whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse relief to the party. This rule has been evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by deceiving it.

¶32

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that Shri Manohar Lal did not approach the Court with disclosure of true facts, and particularly, that he had been allotted the land in the commercial area by GDA on the instruction of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.....”

¶33

Since the eligibility criteria for admission into MBA program course is Graduation in any discipline with a minimum of 50% marks with medium of instruction as English is not in dispute, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in violation of statutory U.G.C. Regulations, as held by the Apex Court in University Grants Commission and another v. Neha

¶34

Anil Bobde (Gadekar) (2 supra) reads as follows:

¶35

“We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 a n d Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination

¶36

and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. For attaining the said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any qualifying criteria, which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. Candidates declared eligible for lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in Universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

¶37

I n Union of India and others v. G.R. Ramakrishna and

¶38

another (3 supra), the Apex Court held as follows:

¶39

“From the aforesaid, it becomes apparent that there are three alternate modes of recruitment to the post, namely, (1) by promotion, failing which (2) by transfer on deputation (including short-term contract), and failing both (3) by direct recruitment. No doubt, if some departmental candidate is available and eligible to be considered, the promotion method is to be resorted to in the first instance. However, no departmental candidate was available. Concededly, the respondent had not completed 8 years’ regular service as Assistant Engineer. In such circumstances only out of sympathy the High Court could not have given the impugned direction. This judicial sympathy resulting into a right in favour of the respondent to appoint him contrary to the Recruitment Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which are statutory in nature is clearly misplaced and needs to be denounced”

¶40

In view of my foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Apex Court, when the petitioner himself admitted that he is not having minimum required percentage of 50% of marks in Graduation and given an undertaking on 28-01-2014 that he will quit from the program in case he fails to get 50% of marks, no writ of mandamus can be issued in violation U.G.C. regulations, and hence, the writ petition is bereft of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶42

A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶43

Date: 15-10-2014

¶44

Ksn

¶45