Ahtisham Ahmad vs Aligarh Muslim University

H.L. Gokhle, C.J.—Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Sunita Agrawal, appearing for the respondents.

The appellant who is a student, had applied for admission to the M. C. A. course in the respondents'' University for the academic year 2007-08. He has the degree of B.C.A. from

Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. He has not been given admission by the University for the reason that so far as the pre-qualifications for the M. C. A. Course are concerned, B.C.A. is not the degree specified therein. The appellant having been denied admission, has filed writ petition before this Court which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge vide Judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2007. Hence, this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant firstly submits that so far as the qualifications required for admission in M.C.A. course are concerned, what is important is that one should have studied Mathematics in Graduation course and appellant had studied Mathematics. The minimum qualification for admission in M. C. A. Course as notified by the University is as follows:

Minimum Qualification:

B. Tech./B. Arch./B.E., with 55% marks in aggregate

OR

(i) B.Sc. Degree from a recognized University with 55% marks in aggregate and must have studied Mathematics along with any one from Statistics, Physics, Computer Science, Computer Application, Computer Maintenance, Information Technology as main or subsidiary subject at the qualifying examination.

(ii) Must have studied Physics and Mathematics at the Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination or its equivalent examination.

What is material to notice, is that so far as the study of Mathematics is concerned, it is provided as a specific qualification for those students who have done B.Sc. and B.C.A. degree is not mentioned anywhere in this qualification clause.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Mathematics studied in B.C.A. Course was equivalent to Mathematics as a subject either main or subsidiary taught in B.Sc. Therefore, he ought to have been considered for admission to M.C.A. Course.

It is not possible for us to direct the University to accept such submission for the reason that the minimum qualifications are specifically laid down for admission to M.C.A. Course and they are meant for the students who have possessed B.Sc. degree having studied Mathematics as main or subsidiary subject and there is no ambiguity regarding qualification to seek admission.

The other submission made by counsel for the appellant is that earlier on two occasions the University had admitted the students to M.C.A. Course who had degree of B.C.A. course. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to an order dated 17th August, 2005 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54840 of 2005 in the case of two students namely Km. Namita Agrawal and Vishnu Dutt Sharma. In that matter, learned Single Judge was hearing the matter had asked the University to file an affidavit to the effect whether the degree of B.C.A. could be treated as minimum qualification for admission to M.C.A. Course. That order was passed on an earlier date, i.e. 8th August, 2005. The respondent University instead of filing such affidavit, had produced copy of communication dated 16th August, 2008 sent from the Office of Controller of Examination and Admission, Aligarh Muslim University containing statement to the effect that Km. Namita Agrawal and Vishnu Dutt Sharma have been given admission. In view of this letter, the Court observed that no further order is required to be passed and the Court disposed of the writ petition.

The second order relied upon by the appellant is passed in the case of Faraz Hasan in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39266 of 2006 wherein this Court held entitled Faraz Hasan, petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39266 of 2006 to similar treatment at par taking note of the fact that the petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54840 of 2005 have been admitted to M.C.A. Course on the basis of B.C.A. decree.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted in view of these two orders, in this matter also, similar order should be passed.

So far as the first order dated 17th August, 2005 is concerned, it is on the concession made by the University that University has admitted two students namely, Km. Namita Agrawal and Vishnu Dutt Sharma though they were possessing B.C.A. degree. So far as the case of Faraz Hasan is concerned, there was (sic) an order concerned, there was an order by this Court.

Mrs. Sunita Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University states that the University has prescribed the qualifications for admission to M.C.A. Course and Court should not have issued! Mandamus directing the University to admit the students merely because in an earlier matter University made concession. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we refer to the Judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Jagjit Singh and another, wherein the Apex Court has held that a particular order passed by the Authority in case of similarly situated another person can never be ground for issuing writ in favour of petitioner. It is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. Such orders passed by the Authorities cannot be treated as precedents.

In the present case, we are conscious that one Single Judge did pass an order directing the University to admit the students though they did not possess B.Sc. degree, in our view the Court should desist itself from passing such order interfering with the autonomy of the University. It is the discretion of the University to decide what are the pre-qualifications for a particular professional course. Similarly, whether any qualification is equivalent to a particular qualification or not, it is for the University to decide. The autonomy of the regulatory body is not expected to be interfered with by the Court or to substitute its Judgment in place of the decision of autonomous authority.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has passed the competitive admission test held by the University therefore, he should have been allowed to be admitted to M.C.A. Course.

In this regard, it is stated by Mrs. Agrawal, appearing for the respondents that the provisionally selected candidates are called with their original documents for the purpose of verification and checking their eligibility criteria for qualification. Accordingly, petitioner was permitted offer for admission text to the Course but on verification of the original documents by the verifying officer, it was found that the petitioner does not possess the minimum eligibility qualification for admission to the Course and as such he was denied admission.

We are informed that he could not have been admitted because the admission to M.C.A. Course has been closed on 14th August, 2007 and the Intake of 60 students has been filled. This being the position, we do not find any error in the judgment and order passed by learned single Judge.

In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is dismissed.