Arvind Goswami vs Vice Chancellor, University of Jammu and Others

Arun Kumar Goel, Judge.

Head learned counsel. Writ Petition is admitted and is taken up for final disposal with consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties,

keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in this case which primarily concerns the admission of a student to M.Sc. in Chemistry in

199899 Session.

It is not in dispute that University of Jammu had issued application forms for admission alongwith brochure containing information about

courses/programmes of study in the teaching departments of the University for 199899 session. It is further not in dispute that reservations were

made for different categories of students and explanation at page 34 of the brochure, is to the following effect:

Cultural/Literary Activities will include Painting/Sketching/Postermaking, Cartooning, Collage, Clay, Modelling, Rangoli, Debate, Elocution,

Poetry Recitation, Quiz, Light Vocal, Classical Vocal, Western Vocal, Western Group Song, Classical Instrumental (Nonpercussion) Group .

Song (Indian), Classical Dance, Group Dange, Mime, Short Story, Photography, Skit, One Act Play and Essay competitions. The participation in

the aforesaid activities will earn credit provided they are organised and or authenticated by the Director of Youth Welfare, University of Jammu.

The certificates issued by the competent authorities under Statute 16 D. IV (1 to 5) shall only be entertained for admission under category of'

Cultural and Literary Activities'. Such activities, if carried out by any organisation/teaching department of the University/affiliated College/Social

Cultural and Literary Organisations/Clubs shall not be considered.

From the record it is revealed that petitioner applied for being admitted to M.Sc. Chemistry course in the category reserved for candidates

claiming reservations in cultural and literary activities. His application has been turned down by respondents vide communication No.

DAS/98/251240 dated 6101998 (Annexure A) issued by respondent No. 5. It is this order that has been impugned by petitioner in the present

writ petition.

Notice was issued to respondents who have put in appearance through their learned counsel Shri D. S. Thakur. As per stand taken up by

respondents in their objections, issuance of brochure for the session 199899 is admitted. However, reasons for not admitting the petitioner to the

course in question is stated in the following terms:

As per the Statutes, as reflected in the Information Brochure, the minimum eligibility for admission in the cultural and literary activities category

was 8 marks out of maximum 40 marks. After the publication of the Information Brochure, the University envisaged a situation wherein a candidate

could secure more marks than 40 in the tenure of graduation course running for a period of 3 years. Accordingly a simple procedure was adopted

that the inter se merit would be calculated on the basis of 40 marks each of the 3 years Bachelor Degree Course thus the asessment could be

made by the University finally out of 120 marks (40 x 3). Corresponding minimum marks which were earlier fixed at 8 marks out of 40, similarly

multiplied by 3 (8 x 3).

However, in order to further increase the zone of consideration amongst student in this particular category, it was decided to reduce the eligibility

by 50% from 24 to 12. According a uniform selection process was conducted which was applied uniformly in all the categories amongst others in

the Department of Chemistry. The petitioner according to this method of calculation did not become eligible for consideration and therefore, was

not selected.

So far prospects issued by Institution are concerned they have the force of law. Please see AIR 1972 Himachal Pradesh 37, Kumari Manjoo and

another vs. State of H. P. and another.

The grounds on which admission has been denied to petitioner is not covered by any of the provisions contained in the brochure, so far students

and general public is concerned, it will go by what is held out by the University authorities in the brochure subject to which conditions candidates

like the petitioner measure their chances of ad mission to a Course being run by respondents. That being so stand taken by respondents, as

reproduced hereinabove, can in no way justify their action in declining the admission to petitioner. It may be appropriate to notice here that it is not

the case of respondents that if the criteria adopted by them as detailed in their reply is not there petitioner is ineligible for being admitted to the

Course in question. This is something which has been done by the respondents contrary to what was held out by the brochure issued by them.

Further nothing has been brought on record to even suggest remotely that candidates were notified of the change in criteria as reflected in the reply

of respondents.

In view of aforesaid facts, this writ petition is allowed and the order contained in AnnexureA, bearing No. DAA/98/251240 dated 6.10.1998,

issued by respondent No. 1 under the signatures of respondents No. 5 is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence of this, respondents are

commanded by Writ of Mandamus to admit the petitioner to M.Sc. Chemistry Course in the session 199899. Incase of deficiency of lectures,

necessary exemption will be granted to him because his not joining the Course is not due to any fault on his pArticle

Costs on the parties.