College of Science and Technology vs Board of Secondary Education and Another

B.D. Rathi, J.—This writ petition No. 4020/2013 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the action of respondents, whereby applications for eligibility of its First Year students of D.Ed. Course for 2012-13 have been rejected and returned to petitioner on the ground of late receipt of eligibility application, record and fees. Copy of the impugned order of respondent No.-2 dated 05.06.2013 is Annexure. P-1. As per the petitioner''s case, petitioner is running the course of Diploma in Education and is recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education and is affiliated to respondent No. 1 Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Copy of recognition order dated 24.12.2008 is Annexure P-3. Name of petitioner is also reflected in the list of recognized institutions on the website of N.C.T.E. Copy of relevant part of list is Annexure P-4 in which at S. No. 170 name of petitioner has been reflected. It has also been mentioned in the petition that name of petitioner also appears in the list (Annexure P-5) of affiliated institutions by respondent No. 1 for the year 2012-13. The students for First Year Course of D.Ed., were admitted. Admission list was submitted by the petitioner to respondents on 25.05.2013 by Annexure P-6. Thereafter, the enrolment and eligibility fees for the students was deposited by the petitioner through Bank Challan on 29.05.2013 and copies of the application for. enrollment and eligibility of students were forwarded by petitioner to the respondents on 29.05.2013 by Annexure P-7. Last date of submission for admission list of First Year D.Ed. students was fixed by respondents as 07.06.2013 by Annexure P-8. Thereafter, the examination forms of students of first year and second year both have been submitted by the petitioner after uploading through online on 11.06.2013 received by respondents on 13.06.2013 (Annexure P-9) and because last date for submission of admission list was fixed by the Board as 07.06.2013, therefore, in view of this date it is crystal clear that the enrolment and eligibility fees for the students which was deposited by the petitioner on 29.05.2013 through Bank Challan was well within time. But, in spite of that, arbitratory order Annexure P-1 was passed by respondent No. 2 on 05.06.2013.

The petitioner prayed for the following relief''s by this writ petition:--

(I) That, this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and impugned order/action contained in Annexure P-1 may kindly be declared as illegal and the same may kindly be quashed.

(II) That, respondents may kindly be directed to accept the enrolment and eligibility application forms of students of petitioner and further be directed to allow the students to appear in the examination of D.Ed. 1st year going to be held in July, 2013.

(III) Any other relief, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with Costs.

As per the return filed by respondents on 28.06.2013, the only objection which has been raised by the respondents is that eligibility fees was deposited on 29.05.2013 by the petitioner whereas the last date for this purpose was 15.05.2013 which was further extended upto 24.05.2013. Therefore, the eligibility forms of 46 students were rejected by the respondents. It was also mentioned that last date 07.06.2013 was fixed for submitting admission list by online. Admission list which could be filed by online upto 07.06.2013 means admission list only of those students to whom eligibility was already granted. In absence of eligibility, students or any institution cannot be permitted to submit examination form for first and second year examination of D.Ed. course and ultimately prayer for dismissal of writ petition has been made.

Arguments heard.

It is submitted by learned Advocate Shri Sharma on behalf of the petitioner that in fact any particular date for submission of enrolment and eligibility applications and fees have never been communicated or published or informed by the respondents. It is also submitted that when last date was fixed as 07.06.2013 for submitting admission list by online process then impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 05.06.2013 has been passed arbitratorily and against the principle of natural justice by the respondents.

On the contrary, it is argued by learned counsel Shri J.P. Mishra on behalf of the respondents that last date for filing enrolment and eligibility forms and fees was fixed as 15.05.2013 and thereafter time was extended upto 24.05.2013 by issuing letter No. 823 Ar.W 2013 dated 06.05.2013 and letter No. 829/ 2013 dated 17.05.2013 respectively by the respondents and this fact was very well within the knowledge of petitioner, therefore, enrolment forms and eligibility fees filed after passing the date fixed for, could not be accepted by the respondents, hence, the order Annexure P-1 dated 05.06.2013 was rightly passed. It was also argued by learned counsel Shri Mishra that last date 07.06.2013 was not fixed for submitting enrolment and eligibility fees but that date was fixed to file list of admission of students to whom enrolment and eligibility has already been granted by the Board. It is also argued that petition be dismissed because such type of relief cannot be granted in view of principles laid down in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and Others Vs. Subhash Rahangdale and Others, .

In view of contentions advanced by both the parties, record has been perused.

Although in impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 05.06.2013 it was mentioned that last date 15.05.2013 was fixed for filing enrolment and eligibility form and fee by letter No. 823/ 2013, dated 06.05.2013 and thereafter this period was extended upto 24.05.2013 by letter No. 829/ 2013, dated 17.05.2013. But, neither the copy of these letters were filed nor the receipt of receiving these letters by petitioner, was filed by the respondents, in spite of the fact that on 29.05.2013 (Annexure P-7) letter addressed to Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal was issued by Principal of the petitioner''s college in which it was clearly mentioned that till today college has not received any letter in regard to date for filing/depositing the eligibility fees. Petitioner has deposited Rs. 13110/- on 29.05.2013 in State Bank of India, Branch Jayendraganj by Challan No. 037388990 for 46 students @ Rs. 285/- per student. The fact of receiving letter dated 29.05.2013 (Annexure P-7) through respondents is clearly evident from order Annexure P-1 passed on 05.06.2013 by respondents itself.

Apart from this, for the sake of arguments if we are agreed that last date was 24.05.2013 for submitting the list of students along with requisite eligibility fee, even then reasons, why delay could not be condoned, should have been mentioned in order Annexure P-1 for refusal to accept the eligibility fee of 46 candidates, speaking order should have been passed by respondents, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and future of 46 students.

It is not the allegation of respondents that all these abovementioned 46 students were provided admissions in college after the date fixed for and against the norms. Not only this the facts mentioned in para 5.2 of the petition "that the students for first course of D. Ed. were admitted in the petitioner''s institution as per the prescribed procedure of respondents and principle Govt. Higher Secondary School Sakhani District Gwalior was appointed as departmental representative to supervise the admission process. The admission list was submitted by the petitioner vide covering letter dated 25.5.2013 before the respondents. The Copy of which is annexed and marked as Ann. P.6." were also not denied by the respondents in their return.

So far as the principles laid down by Apex Court in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya case are not applicable in this particular case. In para 87(xvi) at page 487 it is mentioned that:--

The student admitted by the recognized institutions otherwise than through the entrance/eligibility test conducted in accordance with the admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of appendix 1 to the regulations are also not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorized agency.

But, this is not the dispute of any party in this case. Therefore, respondents cannot be benefited.

In view of the discussions mentioned above we are of the considered view that this petition should be disposed of with a short direction.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is disposed of with a short direction that if petitioner prefer a representation to the respondents in regard to the dispute raised in this petition within a period of two days since today i.e. 3.7.2013 then representation be decided before the date of commencement of examination and if it is found that all the 46 students can be allowed to appear in examination by condoning the delay may be by imposing late fees on them or otherwise, then appropriate directions be issued to petitioner in a way so that petitioner could be able to deposit the same. No order as to costs. C.C. today.