Dupinder Singh vs Guru Nanak Dev University

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ''the University'') by which his admission to the "Bachelor of Business Administration" course was disapproved and his name was ordered to be "struck off from the college Roll..." A few facts may be noticed.

The petitioner appeared in the Senior School Certificate examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education in the year 1993. He was placed in compartment in the subject of Chemistry wherein he had secured 37 marks out of 100. However, according to the ''marks statement'' issued to him on May 27,1993, the petitioner had secured a total of 253 marks out of 500. The Board conducted a supplementary examination in August 1993. The petitioner appeared in the subject of Chemistry. The result was conveyed to him on August 30, 1993. He passed the examination securing 50 marks out of 100. Thus, he finally secured 266 marks out of the total of 500.

The second respondent is the College affiliated to the University. It issued a prospectus for admission to the course leading to the Degree of Bachelor in Business Administration. According to the stipulation in the prospectus, the admission was open to persons who had obtained 50 percent marks in the aggregate in the plus 2 examination. The candidates were to be selected "on merit to be determined through a specially designed Entrance Test followed by a group discussion and interview." The petitioner appeared in the entrance test. He qualified. He paid his fees. He was admitted by the respondent-College. According to the petitioner, he even attended the N.C.C. Camp sponsored by the College from October 9, 1993 to October 19, 1993. While the petitioner was attending his classes, the University informed the College vide its letter dated October 19, 1993, that the petitioner was not correctly admitted to the course as he had been placed in compartment in the subject of Chemistry. Vide letter dated October 26, 1993, the Principal of the College informed the University that the petitioner having secured 253 marks was eligible for admission. The Principal also referred to the contents of a letter dated June 22, 1993, issued by the University wherein it had been provided that in case of candidates who had compartment in 10 + 2 examination, the admission be given only if after counting the marks in the compartment subject, the candidate fulfils the conditions of eligibility. Accordingly, the Principal requested the University to register the candidature of the petitioner. However, vide letter dated November 4, 1993, the University informed the College that the petitioner was not eligible for admission to the course and directed that his name be struck off the rolls. In pursuance to the directions of the University, the college informed the petitioner that his name has been struck off. Copies of these two letters have been produced by the petitioner as Annexures P-6 and P-7 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The impugned action has been challenged as being contrary to the relevant provisions of the Ordinance issued by the University.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the University by the Registrar. In has been averred that the petitioner was not eligible for admission to the course and as such, he is not entitled to invoke the Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further averred that the College was bound to make the admission in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance issued by the University. A copy of this Ordinance has been produced as Annexure R. 1 with the written statement. According to the University, the stipulations made by the College in its prospectus were contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance. It maintains that "the admission to B.B.A.-Part I is open to any person who passes in all the subjects in any group in the Plus-II Examination and obtains at least 50 percent marks in the aggregate There is no relaxation in the relevant Ordinances for a compartment case." Since the petitioner did not fulfill the "twin conditions" laid down in the Ordinance, he was not eligible for admission and the action of the College was void-ab-initio. It has also been averred that as per the circular letter issued by the University on June 22, 1993, the petitioner had to produce an eligibility certificate at the time of his admission. No such certificate having been produced by the petitioner, the College had acted wrongly in admitting him. On these premises, the respondent-University maintains that the impugned order is legal and valid.

I have heard Shri Kanwaljit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Khushpaul Singh for the respondent-University.

It is apt to notice the provisions contained in the relevant Orinance, it reads as under:-

"ELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION.

2.1 The admission to Bachelor in Business Administration first year shall be open to any person who has obtained 50 percent marks in aggregate in plus two examination (Senior Secondary System) in any group from the Punjab School Education Board/C.B.S.E. or any other Examination recognised as equivalent thereto by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.

2.2 The admission shall be made on merit to be determined through a specially designed entrance Test followed by a group discussion and interview. The weightage to the above shall be as under:-

(a) Entrance Test 70%

(b) Group Discussion 15%

(c) Interview 15%"

The decision of this case depends on the interpretation of the above provision. Does the provision require that a candidate should have passed the plus two examination and secured 50 percent marks in the aggregate? Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the candidate has to only secure 50 percent marks in the aggregate and it does not matter as to whether he passes or gets compartment in the examination. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-University is that the candidate must pass and secure 50 percent marks in the examination.

The academic institutions, including Universities, are entrusted with the duty of imparting instructions and ensuring the maintenance of academic standards. It is their prerogative to lay down the minimum standard of eligibility and the method of selection: The Courts in the exercise of their extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution are normally reluctant to enter academic thickets and interfere with the decisions taken by the appropriate academic bodies. Furthermore, it can also be taken as settled that if the view taken by an academic body is in consonance with the plain language of the statute, the Court shall not substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority. Undeniably, any interpretation of a statute which impinges upon the maintenance of academic standards would normally be avoided by Courts. What is the position in the present case?

A perusal of Ordinance 2.1 as noticed above, shows that only a person "who has obtained 50 percent marks in aggregate...." is eligible for admission to the course. It also appears reasonable that if a candidate fails in the School examination, he should not be eligible for admission to a College. If the provision is constructed in generality and not in literality, the view taken by the University may not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Still the question that remains is-Is the action in strict conformity with the plain language of the Ordinance? To decide this issue, it is apt to notice the provisions in respect of a few other courses. Ordinance 2.1 at page 21 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calender Volume-II Part A, lays down the condition of eligibility for admission to the course of B.Sc. Honours School in Economics, it provides as under:-

"2.1 A person who has passed one of the following examinations may be admitted to the first year course.

(i) 10 + 2 examination of the Punjab School Education Board.

(ii) Any other examination recognised by the Academic Council as equivalent to (i) above."

Similar is the position in the case of admission to the "B.A. Honours School Three Years Course in Punjabi." Ordinance 2.1 at page 134 of the aforementioned volume in respect of this course provides as under:-

"2.1 A person who has passed one of the following examinations with at least 55 percent marks in Punjabi and 50 percent in the aggregate may be admitted to the first year course:-

(i) Plus Two of Punjab School Education Board.

(ii) Any other examination recognised by this University as equivalent to (i) above."

Even the Ordinance for admission to B.A. Honours School in English is couched in similar language.

On a comparison of the provisions relating to the admission to various courses, it is clear that whenever the authority required that a candidate should pass and secure the prescribed percentage of marks, it has provided so in specific terms. Since the rules making authority has specifically provided that a candidate should pass a particular examination and secure the prescribed percentage of marks for admission to certain courses, its omission to do so in case of admission to the Course in Business Administration cannot be said to be without significance. Furthermore, it is also relevant to notice that in case of admission to B.A., B.Sc., B.Sc. Agriculture, B.Com. and Bachelor of Physical Education Courses, it has been specifically provided that candidates who are placed in compartment shall be eligible for admission. In this behalf, reference to ordinance 3 appearing at page 3, Ordinance 7 at page 145, Ordinance 3 at page 179 and Ordinance 3-B at page 208 of the Calendar may be made. Consequently, it is not that a candidate who is placed in compartment is considered as ineligible for admission to a higher course. In fact, on a comparative examination of the various provisions, it is apparent that different provisions have been made for admission to different courses. It is not a condition precedent that a candidate should have passed the 10 + 2 examination in all subjects before he becomes eligible for admission to a higher course. In fact, whenever the rule making authority so desired, it had made a specific provision to that effect. In other cases, even those who have been placed in compartment have been made eligible.

The intention of the rule making authority has to be inferred from the specific provision and the plain language of the relevant ordinance. If the language is clear and unambiguous, the court cannot add words so as to give it a meaning which may be different from that appearing from a plain reading thereof. On an over all examination of the statutory provisions, it appears that a candidate who has secured 50 percent marks in the aggregate has been made eligible for admission to the course in Business Administration. The condition which is now sought to be imposed by the University would require addition of words to the effect that the candidate "has passed the examination". Since such a condition has not been imposed by the rule making authority in spite of the fact that it had done so in cases of admission to various other courses, it would not be fair to add these words to the Ordinance and to impose an extra conditions on the candidate.

It may be that the appropriate academic authority considers it desirable that the candidate should have passed the Plus two examination. This objective can be achieved by an appropriate amendment of the Ordinance. As it stands at present, such a condition cannot be read into the Ordinance.

There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner had been permitted to appear in the entrance test. He was placed fairly high in order of merit and was admitted to the course. He has already studied for a few months before the University passed the impugned order. In view of the interim order passed by the Motion Bench, the petitioner has now studied for over a year. At this stage, it may not be fair to cancel his admission. This is all the more so in view of the fact that the petitioner had actually appeared in the compartment examination before the classes had actually started. In fact, even his result of the compartment examination taken by him in August, 1993 had been declared on August 30, 1993. By the time of the commencement of the course, the petitioner had obviously fulfilled even the additional condition which is now sought to be imposed by the University.

Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, it appears that the action of the University in cancelling the petitioner''s admission was not in strict conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. The impugned orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-7 are consequently quashed. It is further directed that the petitioner''s result for the examination already taken by him shall be declared within one week from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.