AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Deshpande, J.—The Petitioner is a graduate in Science from the University of Saugar in the State of Madhya Pradesh. She obtained her degree in the year 1971. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order at Exhibit ''F'' passed by the Assistant Registrar (Examination), Marathwada University, Aurangabad, informing her that in view of the existence of the provisions of the ordinance, her request regarding the issue of eligibility certificate for admission to the B.Ed, class in the college affiliated to the Marathwada University during the year 1983-84 as a special case cannot be granted.
The Petitioner seeks to get admission to the B.Ed. class in the Government College of Education, Aurangabad, which is affiliated to the Marathwada University. It appears that she applied to the said college for admission on 30th June 1983. A provisional admission was given to her. On 6th August 1983, she made an application to the Registrar, Marathwada University, through the said College, stating that she had taken admission in B.Sc. Part-II of the Saugar University and she had also passed B.Sc. Part-II from the said University and obtained the degree in the year 1971. She also stated that at the Intermediate Science Examination, which was recognised as equivalent to B.Sc. Part-I of the University of Saugar, she had offered English as one of the compulsory subjects and passed in that subject also. She also stated that the Intermediate Science Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal is recognised as equivalent to B.Sc. Part-I Examination of the Marathwada University. She, therefore, stated that she should be treated as a student, who has completed her First Year B.Sc. course with English as the subject having been passed by her on the strength of Intermediate Science Examination, which was treated as equivalent to B.Sc. Part-I examination. This application was replied to through the Principal of the College, after forwarding it to the University perhaps, and on 16th August 1983. it appears that the Assistant Registrar (Examinations) informed the Principal, Government College of Education, Aurangabad, where the Petitioner was seeking admission, that students migrating from the jurisdiction of other Universities cannot be given admission to any course unless they obtain the eligibility certificate from the Marathwada University. It was also further mentioned in the said reply that while making scrutiny of the application of the petitioner, it was discovered that the Petitioner had not passed in the subject of English at her B.Sc. Second Year Examination conducted by the Saugar University and, therefore, she is not eligible to seek admission to B Ed. College and as such, eligibility certificate cannot be granted to her.
The Petitioner again made an attempt by making an application on 19th August 1983 repeating her grievance stating that by virtue of the equivalence of the Intermediate Science Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal with B.Sc. First Year of the Saugar University and by virtue of the fact that the degree of the Saugar University is recognised by the Marathwada University as equivalent to its degree examination, the condition of passing of English as compulsory subject stands fulfilled in her case. She further reiterated that she has already passed that subject at the Intermediate Science Examination, which is equated with the First Year B.Sc. examination of the three year degree course and recognised by the Marathwada University as such and, therefore, she may be granted the eligibility certificate. This application also met with the same fate and, as stated earlier, the Assistant Registrar (Examinations) on 29th September 1983, in reply to this application, informed the Petitioner that in accordance with the existing provisions of the Ordinance, eligibility certificate cannot be granted.
It appears that the Petitioner had also made one application on 29th September 1983 to the Vice-Chancellor of the Marathwada University setting out her grievance and specially referring to Ordinance No. 207 governing the condition of admission to the B.Ed. course of the Marathwada University. She had explained in that application to the Vice-Chancellor that she fulfills the conditions of having offered and passed in English as a compulsory subject at the degree course and, as such, she may be granted the eligibility certificate.
Again, on 28th October 1983, the petitioner applied through the Principal, perhaps to the Vice-Chancellor, and in this application, in addition to her grievance which she had made earlier, she further pointed out four instances of similarly situated candidates, who had shortcomings in regard to their fulfillment of certain conditions such as passing of English as a compulsory subject and these candidates were granted admission to the B.Ed. College. It was specifically mentioned in that application that one candidate by lame Patni, who was a graduate from the Saugar University itself, and who had obtained the degree in similar circumstances such as offering English as compulsory subject at the Intermediate Examination and who had sought admission to the B.Ed. College at Aurangabad, not only got admission, but, at the final hearing of this petition we were told, he also ultimately got degree from the Marathwada University as a special case. These instances quoted in the application and again the petitioner requested the Vice-Chancellor to consider her case. There is a letter, Exhibit ''L'', on record which shows that the student called Patni must have been at some stage a student of the B.Ed. College and it appears that his results were withheld for want of eligibility certificates. This is only for a limited purpose to show that a case similar to the one which the petitioner has raised in this matter, as a matter of fact, seems to have been dealt with by the University and the said student seems to have been permitted to appear for the B.Ed, examination.
This application also was not considered by the University and ultimately, by a letter dated 3rd November 1983, the Petitioner was informed as follows. This letter is addressed by the Registrar of the Marathwada University, to the Principal of the Government College of Education, Aurangabad.
With reference to your letter No. GCEA/Elig/83-84/4582 dated 29-10-1983 addressed to the Vice Chancellor on the above noted subject, I am directed to state that, as already communicated to you, the case of the student in question of your college does not fit in the relevant Ordinance No. 0.207, laid down for admission to the B.Ed. Course of this University and as such, Eligibility Certificate cannot be issued to her. Repeated requests from the said student for reconsidering her case, by quoting far-fetched and old cases are not at all desirable. It is not known under what circumstances your office has granted her admission when there are very clear and specific instructions from this office that such cases of migrated students should invariably be referred to this office and such candidates should in no case be given admission without first asking them to obtain at least provisional Eligibility Certificate from this office.
Yours faithfully, Sd/- Registrar.
In view of this reply received from the Registrar, the Petitioner, being unsuccessful in getting admission to the B.Ed. College, either on the grounds of sympathy or, as a special case, or on the grounds of special factors, which she had disclosed such as similar persons having been given admissions in the past by the Marathwada University, she had approached this Court by filing writ petition on 10th November 1983.
When this petition had come up for admission, it appears that the petitioner had made averments that she was pursuing the course and she also wanted to obtain an injunction from this Court, which was initially granted on 13-12-1983, however, it later came to be vacated by this Court.
The petitioner in paragraph 7 of her petition avers that since she has passed her intermediate Science Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, which is treated as equivalent to B.Sc. Part-I Examination of the Three Year Degree Course of the Saugar University and which has been accepted by the University here and since on this basis only, the Petitioner was allowed admission to B.Sc. Part-II by the Saugar University and since English is one of the passing subjects at the intermediate Science Examination, which is treated equivalent, she can be deemed to have passed English as a subject in the degree course. She further avers that she given several representations to the University, which are annexed to the petition, and these representations were replied to by different authorities at different times, as we have shown above. Then, she further refers to her representation made to the Vice-Chancellor representing her grievance. Then, in paragraph 10, the Petitioner avers that Ordinance No. 207 does not require her to fulfill the condition of passing English subject in the Second Year or the Third Year of the Three-Year Degree Course. It only requires that she should pass the subject of English at the degree level, either in the first year or second year or third year. In her case, she states that she has passed this subject of English in the first year of the three-year degree course. The Petitioner further states that as the degree course is of three years, both at Saugar University and at Marathwada University, her passing in English subject as a compulsory subject at Board Examination being equivalent to the first year science is sufficient to comply with the requirements of Ordinance No. 207. In addition, the Petitioner has. stated that she also attended the college and she also relied on certain instances to show that the University can certainly show sympathy to her and grant admission to the B.Ed. College.
The Petitioner also applied for the eligibility certificate as required by the rules and application for eligibility certificate is also in a proforma, which is at page 50 on the record. This application is dated 5th August 1983. The Petitioner, along with the petition, has enclosed her mark memos showing the marks obtained at the Intermediate Science Examination as well as Part-II and Part-Ill Examinations of degree of science of the Saugar University. They are at pages 34,35 and 36 of the Paper Book. It is the case of the Petitioner that in view of this condition of passing of English as a compulsory subject at the intermediate science examination, which is equated with the first year of the degree course of the Saugar University, and which position is also similar to the one of Marathwada University, she fulfils the requirement of Ordinance No. 207 and, therefore, ''she is entitled to the issue of eligibility certificate from the Marathwada University.
There is a return filed to the petition by the Registrar of the Marathwada University. In the return in reply to paragraph 7 of the petition, it is admitted that the Intermediate Science Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal is treated as equivalent to the B.Sc. first year of three year''s degree course of science of Marathwada University and as such a candidate who has passed the said examination, can be admitted to B.Sc. second year of the Marathwada University. However, it is further stated that this cannot make the candidate eligible for seeking admission to B.Ed, course of this University, because passing of English as one of the passing subjects at the degree examination is a condition in that behalf. The Petitioner on the basis of having obtained her degree from the Saugar University without opting for English at the said examination cannot claim admission to the B.Ed. course of this University in violation of the prescribed ordinance and rules in that behalf and it is in this background that the averments in paragraph 7 of the petition were denied. Then, in the return, there is a reference to rule 576 pertaining to certain subjects which is not necessary to be stated here. Then, in paragraph 6, the return goes on to say that the students passing Intermediate Science Examination are eligible to be admitted to B.Sc IInd year of the three year Degree course of B.Sc. Then about the representations, it is admitted that they were received by the University. In paragraph 14 of the return, it is mentioned that the fact that the Marathwada University has turned down the representation made by the Petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor is correct. It is further stated that it is true that the case of the petitioner does not fit in the relevant Ordinance No. 207 of the Marathwada University and the Registrar expressed that the reply given to the petitioner on 3rd November 1983 is quite correct and justified. The other contents arc in regard to the interpretation of Ordinance No. 207, which we need not repeat. In paragraph 16 of the return, again it is mentioned that the Petitioner without having opted and passed English as one of the compulsory subjects at the degree level is not eligible for admission to the B.Ed. College and no eligibility certificate can be granted.
Then, in paragraph 19, there is a reference to certain powers of the Academic Council. There is also a reference to the powers of the Executive Council to frame regulations and ordinances. Then in paragraph 21, it is stated that the degree of Bachelor of Education shall be conferred on a candidate who has satisfied the conditions laid down in Ordinance No. 207 passed by the Marathwada University under the Marathwada University Act, 1974. As per this ordinance, it is necessary that the candidate should have passed the Bachelor''s degree examination in Arts, Science, Commerce or Agriculture of the Marathwada University or of any other University recognised by this University as equivalent thereto with compulsory English as one of the passing subjects. The petitioner having admitted that she did not study English at the B.Sc. IInd year and also having expressed willingness to appear at the B.Sc. IInd year examination of the Marathwada University with English with a view to make herself eligible to the B,Ed. degree course cannot now be admitted to the B.Ed. degree course in contravention of the provisions of Ordinance No. 207. Then, there is a reference to Ordinance Nos. 180, 181, 182, 183 and 184, which are extracted and filed as the annexures to the return, and relying on these Ordinances, it is contended in the return that the Registrar was competent to deal with the issue of eligibility certificate application and he has, therefore, replied and his reply is justified. In paragraph 24. an attempt has been made by the Registrar on behalf of the University to explain the instances, which were cited by the Petitioner. Paragraph 24 refers to Exhibit ''K'' and application dated 20th October 1973 wherein the Petitioner has mentioned certain instances of Patni Shripal, Kokate Sitaram, Sanap Ramrao and Jare Madhav Ganpat to whom the University had allowed to appear at the B.Ed, examination although they were similarly situated and had similar shortcomings. This reply, as far as instances given by the Petitioner are concerned, states that the search of the office record pertaining to the above cases revealed that the said record from the year 1973 to 1978 has been destroyed as per the provisions of the Marathwada University Accounts Code. 1980, then the provisions of the Code are quoted in the annexure and it is specifically stated in paragraph 24 of the return that the deponent is not thus in a position to admit the claim of the petitioner in this behalf.
In short, the narrow question for determination in this case, which could be framed, is as follows: -
Whether, as contended in the return of the Registrar, Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Ordinance No. 207 framed under the Marathwada University Act, 1974 bars the eligibility of the present Petitioner from getting admission to the B.Ed. College.?
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that Ordinance No. 207 has to be read in the light of three undisputed facts. First is that the Marathwada University has recognised the degree of Saugar University as equivalent to its degree. Second, that the Intermediate Science Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, has been held equivalent and quite competent for admission to the course of B.Sc. IInd year both in the Saugar University and Marathwada University. It is equivalent to first year B.Sc. examination and permits a student to seek admission to the second year B.Sc. course. Third, that both the degree courses, of Saugar University as well as Marathwada University, are the degree courses spread over three years. On the basis of these undisputed facts, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner must be held eligible. Learned counsel specially referred to the provisions of Ordinance No. 481 of the Marathwada University itself, which is as follows:-
The Decree of Bachelor of Science shall be conferred on a candidate who has pursued a regular course of study consisting of three years in the relevant subjects as prescribed and has appeared at and passed in all the examinations prescribed for the Degree Course in the Faculty.
The syllabus of the University shows that the degree course of Science of the Marathwada University is of three years. The Booklet "Marathwada University - B.Sc.
Examination (Second Year), which is produced on record, shows at R. 576 as follows:-
There shall be a University Examination at the end of each year in the following subjects studied by the candidate and for which he has registered and applied-
i) For the First Year Examination-
English
Second Language
Three optional subjects
ii) For the Second Year Examination-
English
Second Language
Three optional subjects.
iii) For the Third Year Examination-
Three optional subjects.
This will disclose that English is a subject, which is compulsory according to the three year degree course, at the first and second year only. The third year examination of degree course of science of Marathwada University itself does not provide for passing English as one of the subjects. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the requirement of Ordinance No. 207 is that the student must have passed with compulsory English as one of the passing subjects for obtaining the degree. We may here reproduce Ordinance No. 207, which reads as follows:-
The Degree of Bachelor of Education shall be conferred on a candidate, who has satisfied the following conditions: -
(a) He must have passed the Bachelor''s degree examination in Arts, Science, Commerce or Agriculture of the Marathwada University or of any other University recognised by this University as equivalent thereto, with compulsory English as one of the passing subjects.
The other Cl. (b) of this Ordinance is not relevant for our purpose.
We may here also mention that we are dealing with a case of the Petitioner, who is seeking admission to B.Ed. course where the medium of instruction and examination is both Marathi and English, which is noticed if we look at R. 66. R. 66, which is appearing in the booklet "Marathwada University - Bachelor of Education - B.Ed. Examination" says in its clause (b) as follows:-
(b) The medium of instruction and examination will be Marathi or English.
We are making a reference to this because argument of learned counsel for the Petitioner had some reference to this aspect also while interpreting the provisions in question.
The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has satisfied the condition of passing with compulsory English as one of the passing subjects at her Intermediate Science Examination and from the wording of Ordinance No. 207 itself, it is nowhere laid down or it cannot be even remotely inferred from any word in that Ordinance No. 207 that English must be offered as one of the subjects at the degree level. Learned Counsel further referred us to Ordinance No. 479, Clause-III, appearing at page 2 of the booklet "Marathwada University - B.Sc. Examination (Second Year)", which states as follows:-
0.479 :....
(b) ....
(iii) A candidate migrating from any of the statutory University situated in Maharashtra State to the other University in the State after successfully completing the Intermediate (Science) Examination or the 1st year B.Sc. or B.Sc. Part-I examination or B.Sc. (I and II Semester) examination or an examination recognised as equivalent thereto shall be admitted to the II year. His performance in the First Year (I & II Semester) Intermediate (Science)( at the previous University/Board shall be taken into consideration and shall be added to the marks he obtains in the Second and Third year examination in order to declare his final results....
There appears to be some printing mistake in this clause so far as words "University situated in Maharashtra State" are concerned, but we are not concerned with that aspect. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the latter portion of this clause (iii) of Ordinance No. 479, wherein it is provided that the performance of the I and II Semester of the First Year or in the Intermediate (Science) Examination is to be taken into consideration and marks are added to the marks which the candidate obtains in Second and Third Year examinations in order to declare his final results. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this gives an indication to show that the passing of the English as compulsory subject at a particular year is sufficient to comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 207 and it is not necessary that the Petitioner should further offer that subject or should be examined in that subject at the second year examination of the three year degree-course. It is not necessary to have her passed with English at the second year B.Sc. examination. The combined reading of Ordinance Nos. 479 (clause iii) and 481 would show that it is not necessary, according to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the candidate should have passed in English subject at the second year examination of the degree-course. In addition, learned counsel also invited our attention to clause (c) of Ordinance No. 479 which runs as follows:-
A candidate directly admitted to the Second Year of the three year degree course of this University after passing intermediate (Science) or Pre-Professional or B.Sc. First Year or B.Sc. Part-I or an examination recognised as equivalent thereto shall not be required to appear at and pass the B.Sc. I year examination of this University.
The reference to this provision was made by learned Counsel only to emphasise that passing of English subject at a particular year seems to be not a necessary ingredient or a fundamental requirement under Ordinance No. 207. If we look at Ordinance No. 207, and analyse clause (a) of this Ordinance No. 207, which we have extracted above, it will show that the candidate must pass (1) a Bachelor''s degree examination; (2) he must also pass the degree examination of a University which is held to be equivalent thereto by the Marathwada University; and (3) he must have passed with compulsory English as one of the passing subjects. When the words of a particular enactment are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their full meaning. Ordinary rule of interpretation is that the interpretation should be to advance the object behind the provisions. The object of Ordinance No. 207 was to admit students, who have obtained a Bachelor''s degree with compulsory English as one of the passing subjects. The degree course itself is a continuous course of three years. It was contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the three years course is like a continuous stream. It cannot be isolated. The terms of Ordinance No. 207 itself do not qualify or limit the expression "compulsory English as one of the passing subject." It does not indicate that this compulsory subject must be offered at a particular level or at a particular year. To import this limitation in the Ordinance would be unjust and unlawful and the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Ordinance on the basis of plain and unambiguous words used in it
In reply to this contention, learned Counsel for the University, first of all, submitted that the Marathwada University has provided for three year degree course in Science faculty and as the students of Marathwada University have to take English as compulsory subject both at First Year and Second Year of the said degree course, it is necessary that the Petitioner, who seeks admission or eligibility certificates from the University, must also comply with this requirement of passing the compulsory English at the second year of the three year degree course off Bachelor of Science. It was also contended by learned Counsel, in answer to the contention of the Petitioner, that the equivalence which is recognised by the University for Intermediate Science Examination is limited only for the purpose of admission and it cannot be extended for further conditions which are rightly laid down by the Ordinance in question. Learned Counsel for the University contended that the Ordinance is framed by the University and the conditions of the said Ordinance lay down passing of the English as compulsory subject and as the Marathwada University has laid down that English has to be a passing subject for the second year examination the petitioner, who has not passed English at the second year examination, cannot be said to be qualified to get admission in violation of the said Ordinance in this University. Learned Counsel for the University further contended that recognition and equivalence or accepting of Intermediate Science Examination as equivalent to B. Sc. Part-I can only entitle a student to seek admission to the B. Sc. Part-II or second year of this University. It has no relevance with the obtaining of degree at all. In any case, it was contended that the Petitioner having not passed English as a compulsory subject at the second year examination of B. Sc, she cannot be held to be eligible and given eligibility certificate.
It was further contended by learned Counsel for the University, during the course of arguments, that, in fact, English must be shown as one of the subjects at the degree level itself, and the degree certificate of a University must show that the candidate has passed in English. He emphasised that the degree is conferred only in those subjects which are mentioned in the degree certificate and if it is undisputed in this case that the Petitioner''s degree of B. Sc. course does not mention English as one of the compulsory subjects, then she cannot be held eligible for admission to B. Ed. course on the basis of such equivalence or recognition.
learned Counsel for the University further argued that it is never disputed in this case that the Petitioner has not offered English as one of the passing subjects at the second or third year of her B. Sc degree course. Her case throughout has been that she had passed in that subject only at the Intermediate Science Examination, which was treated as equivalent to B. Sc. First Year Course. Learned Counsel for the University emphasised that if the degree does not show by the mention of English as one of the passing subjects, the University is not able to recognise such a degree at all and a candidate cannot have any right to seek admission on the basis of such a degree.
The question whether a degree course should be treated as of three year or for conferral of degree, it should be treated as only of two years, has to be answered on he plain reading of the provisions of Ordinance No. 479 and R. 578 as mentioned in the booklet, which is on record. In our opinion, once it is found that the B. Sc. course is a continuous course of three years, the splitting up of years for the purpose of knowing as to what were the subjects in which the candidate gave examination is unwarranted by the provisions of the said Ordinance, which we have earlier quoted, on the first principles. Ordinance No. 207 itself does not refer that the candidate must pass with compulsory English as one of the subjects at a particular year. It would be importing these words if we say that the candidate must pass his first and second year or second year examination with compulsory English as one of the passing subjects. As we have earlier observed, when the words of a particular rule or ordinance are clear, and they are not otherwise ambiguous, there is very little scope either to restrict or extend their meaning. They will have to be given their plain, grammatical and direct meaning and, in our opinion, in the absence of any such qualification in clause (a) of Ordinance No. 207. it is difficult to import this condition merely because the syllabus of the University prescribes a three year course and in that prescribes passing of first and second year examination with English as one of the subjects. The spirit of the object behind the provisions of Ordinance No. 207 seems to be that a candidate must have passed the Bachelor''s degree with English as a compulsory subject. In what manner and in what year he passes the said subject cannot be imported in Ordinance No. 207 itself, and that will have to be discovered and found in somewhere else, such as, in the requisite examination, in the instant case, Intermediate Science Examination of Board of Secondary Education of Madhya Pradesh, or in some other examination of some other University as is recognised by the Marathwada University. In this case, the Marathwada University itself has recognised the Intermediate Science Examination of Board of Secondary Education of Madhya Pradesh as sufficient for admission to the second year B. Sc. course and has held it to be equivalent to first year B. Sc. course, and, therefore, this would be sufficient to show that passing of English as compulsory subject cannot be linked with a degree year, that is, the final year, which is the year of the conferral of the degree. Learned Counsel for the University wanted us to say that the degree year means the final year of the degree course to consider whether the candidate has passed English as compulsory subject or not. His main emphasis was that since the Marathwada University while prescribing three year degree course has prescribed at the first and second year examination English as one of the compulsory subjects, a candidate, who seeks to take benefit of this Ordinance must comply with that. This would mean that the candidates, who have passed and obtained degrees of other Universities, although their degrees are recognised by the Marathwada University, will have to again appear for the degree examination of second year of the B. Sc. course of the Marathwada University to comply with that condition. Learned Counsel for the University submitted that mere recognition of the University degree does not imply that this condition is unwarranted. We are afraid that we cannot agree with this contention at all. The very fact that B. Sc. degree examination of the Saugar University is recognised by the Marathwada University as equivalent to its B. Sc. degree requires that we must give some meaningful interpretation to such recognition, otherwise the candidates who pass the degrees of other Universities, which are recognised by Marathwada University as equivalent, will be faced with such conditions by virtue of Ordinance No. 207 that even though they had obtained their degrees in the respective Universities in similar conditions, which are available for degree course in the Marathwada University and have sought admission in this University, they will be rendered ineligible and their degrees would not be of any importance in such cases. We have to interpret the provisions of the Ordinance in question keeping this view in mind, lest we will be doing injustice to such students. In this case, the Petitioner has passed and obtained her Science degree from the Saugar University and what is required by Ordinance No. 207 is that she must have passed her degree examination with compulsory English as one of the passing subjects at the said degree course. It is undisputed that the degree course cannot be split up and cannot be said to be of two years or of one year or even of three years, it will have to be regarded as a three year degree course as a whole. If the degree course is of three years, in the absence of any special restriction or condition introduced, it is difficult to isolate or split up these years in parts and deny any benefit to the candidate who has passed compulsory subjects at a particular level or year.
The contention of learned University Counsel that the degree level itself is the basic factor and criteria to decide in which subject the degree is conferred also does not appear to be well founded Learned Counsel for the "Petitioner has himself produced before us a degree certificate of the Marathwada University itself. The original was presented before us and a Xerox copy of the degree obtained by one Shri Vinodkumar Surajprasad Mehra of Deogiri College, Aurangabad is taken on record. This Vinodkumar Surajprasad Mehra is the husband of the Petitioner. We have marked the. copy as Exhibit ''C from Court. From this certificate, it will be apparent that the Marathwada University itself does not mention passing of English as the subject at the degree level, although it confers the degree on its own candidates. The subjects in which this Mehra has been examined were Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics and the other subjects are not mentioned in this degree. If the contention of learned Counsel for the University is accepted to be correct that the conferral of the degree restricts or is confined only to those subjects which are mentioned in the degree, this would mean that the candidates of Marathwada University will be disqualified in Marathwada area itself from seeking admission to any other course on the basis of this degree. This is again contrary to the elementary principle of reading Ordinance No. 207, because these subjects which are mentioned in the degree certificate cannot be isolated from other subjects, which are taken by the students and passed during the course of first two years of the degree course. The syllabus itself shows that at first and second year and also at third year, there are examinations in optional subjects. The degree must be interpreted to be a comprehensive document in all subjects in which the student has passed his examination and which is spread over three years. To restrict the subjects or the years would be doing violence to the very spirit of conferral of the degree and, in our opinion, the contention of the University Counsel that since the degree of the Petitioner does not itself disclose that English was one of the subjects in which she gave her examination, she is not entitled and eligible is without any substance and, therefore, it is rejected.
Counsel for the University contended before us that the Petitioner had an option of English and Hindi even at the second year of the Saugar University and at the three year degree course of Saugar University, she has opted for Hindi and English is not taken by her in the second year. It was, therefore, contended that if she would have taken English as subject for the second year as it was available in Saugar University, she would have certainly complied with the conditions as imposed in the said Ordinance of this Marathwada University. The argument again appears to be not well-founded. If the candidate was given option by the Saugar University, to opt for subjects, it is difficult to import compulsion for the candidate to have opted for the said subject in the degree course of that University. The answer to this contention is very short. The moment Marathwada University has recognised the degree of the Saugar University as equivalent to its B. Sc. degree, it is immaterial and irrelevant whether the students appearing at Saugar University were examined in Particular subjects either compulsory or optional. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the University that she has failed to take English as a compulsory subject for the second year, which was available in second year, and having not taken that subject, she is disqualified and it cannot be stated that she has passed in compulsory subjects cannot be accepted, as reasonable.
The second point which was urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that Ordinance No. 207, which was invoked by the Registrar to refuse eligibility certificate to the Petitioner and her representations, Which were sent to the University, seem to have been not considered by the Vice-Chancellor at all. It is not necessary for us to deal with this contention. However, we may in passing refer to certain things which have come to our notice. It is true that under the Ordinances, which are invoked and relied on by the University in the return, there is nothing to show that the eligibility certificate is processed, considered and examined only at the Registrar''s level. It appears that Assistant Registrar (Examinations) also is a person who deals with these matters. There are two letters on record of this Court which show that the Assistant Registrar (Examinations) has relied on the Petitioner. There is also one more letter which is also impugned in this petition which is addressed by the Registrar wherein it is stated that she cannot be granted eligibility certificate. Counsel for the University has invited our attention to Ordinances Nos. 181, 182, 183 and 184 which are part of the paper Book before us as Annexure II. It was stated before us that except these Ordinances, there are no Ordinances which govern the grant or refusal of the eligibility certificate. If we look to the provisions of Ordinance No. 189. it deals with some formalities to be complied with by the student and then a form of certificate of eligibility is provided, provisional as well as final. In clause (ii) of Ordinance No. 181, it is mentioned that the Registrar may issue a provisional certificate of eligibility if he is satisfied that the applicant is prima facie eligible for admission to this University, at latter''s risk. This is a clause which provides for issue of provisional certificate. In the same clause, it is provided further that if there is any delay, the Executive Council, if it is satisfied that the delay on the part of a student in applying for an eligibility certificate was not due to any fault of his own, may when granting the eligibility certificate direct that it shall have retrospective effect from the date on which the student commenced to attend the institution to which he applied for admission. Ordinance No. 182 mentions : "A student migrating to this University from any other statutory University in the State of Maharashtra shall apply to the Registrar of this University for a certificate of eligibility and shall at the same time pay a fee of Rs. 15/- . Such fee shall not be returned if an eligibility certificate is issued to the applicant. But if no certificate can be issued by the University for any reason, one half of the said fee shall be retained by the University and the other half shall be returned." Ordinance No. 183 runs as under :-
No student who has not produced his final eligibility certificate before the end of the first term after joining a college will be granted that term.
Ordinance No. 184 is in the following words :-
No student from the jurisdiction of another University or statutory Examining Body seeking admission to this University shall be admitted to a college affiliated to this University after the expiry of one month from the date of commencement of any term. Provided, however, that if the Principal of a college is satisfied that there was sufficient reason for delay on the part of a student seeking admission as aforesaid he ;nay admit the student to the college notwithstanding the expiry of one month, if the Principal has reason to believe that the student will be able to register the necessary attendance prescribed by the Ordinance for the class to which he seeks admission.
We have quoted in extenso these Ordinances only to show that they nowhere provide the decision making by either Registrar or any other authority under the University Act. They only provide a mode for granting or refusing of eligibility certificate on certain conditions to be fulfilled by the students. The combined reading of these Ordinances gives us no assurance that this eligibility certificate, for which the Petitioner has applied to the University, is actually dealt with only at the Registrar''s level or that he gives his decision in such matters after applying his mind. Except these Ordinances, nothing was pointed out to us that the Registrar can only examine the cases of this type and his decision is based on certain application of mind and is final. In the alternative, we had asked learned Counsel for the University if any disputed case arises in respect of grant of refusal of eligibility certificate, who is the deciding authority. Learned Counsel stated that it is the Registrar alone who decides. We are afraid that the Registrar, who can only be an administrative head of the University, unless Ordinances or statutes provide for, could examine or decide matters and we think that he would not be competent to decide the question of eligibility when it is disputed, as in this particular case, by invoking the provisions of Ordinance No. 207. Here was a case in which the Vice-Chancellor was addressed by the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended before us that there is nothing on the record to show that the Vice-Chancellor was appraised of the Petitioner''s grievance and it appears that her representations were not considered by him at all. This grievance was made only to show that in a case like this where some difficulty in regard to interpretation of Ordinance No. 207 had arisen, it was desirable both on the principles of equality and natural justice that the Vice-Chancellor, who is the highest officer of the University, should have been appraised. In a routine manner, the Registrar dealt with this matter and relying on Ordinances Nos. 181, 182, 183 and 184, he has replied to the Petitioner that eligibility certificate cannot be granted.
We are not suggesting that the Registrar is not otherwise competent to deal with it. The form of eligibility certificate is addressed itself to the Registrar. What is pertinent to note in this particular case is that the Assistant Registrar (Examinations) has also dealt with this matter. In view of this state of affairs that different officers of the University are dealing with this matter, it is difficult to attribute the refusal or grant to the Registrar alone although apparently he is corresponding with other people when University matters are concerned. The Registrar''s reply will have to be either reply in ordinary routine and if they mean decision on certain points, then it is necessary that the decision must flow from the provisions of the Ordinance of the Executive Council or special delegation by the Vice-Chancellor or the regulations of the Executive Council itself. In the absence of any such delegation by the authorities and in the absence of any statutory powers which govern the grant or refusal of eligibility certificate, mere reply of the Registrar that the eligibility certificate is refused amounts to a determination in a disputed question without any authority especially when it arose for decision before the Vice-Chancellor. Learned Counsel for the University relied on the letter of the Registrar to show, which is addressed to the Principal of the Govt. College of Education on 3rd November 1983, that it states especially :
...I am directed to state that, as already communicated to you.... Even this letter does not mention that the papers were either placed before the Vice-Chancellor or before the concerned authorities or any committees of the University, which might be dealing with these matters. As far as this case is concerned, it appears that there is no such committee, or, at least, any officer to whom we are referred to who is specially invested with decision in such matters. u/s 11 (6) (b) of the Marathwada University Act, the Vice-Chancellor is quite competent to deal with any matter for which there is an omission or there is absence of any regulation or ordinances. It is with this limited purpose that we have examined this question of competence of the Registrar in this case to refuse a person eligibility certificate on the ground of interpretation of Ordinance No. 207. In fact, there is no interpretation at all. What the Registrar has done is that he has only referred to Ordinance No. 207 and stated that in view of it, the certificate of eligibility cannot be granted. The reference by learned Counsel for the University to the words in the letter of the Registrar dated 3rd November 1983, "I am directed to state" also does not clearly lead to hold that he has been directed in this particular case by the Vice-Chancellor to answer in this way. This has special importance, because in this case the Petitioner requested by her representation to the Vice-Chancellor to exercise his power to examine the question arising out of interpretation of he relevant Ordinance and requested him to properly decide the issue by exercising the powers given to him under the Act. The nature of power referred to in section 11 (6) (b) of the Marathwada University Act reveals that it would be the duty of the officers and subordinates of the Vice-Chancellor to place the entire case papers before him and appraise him of the question arising in order that this power can be invoked and, therefore, we feel that if this would have been done in this particular case, the Vice-Chancellor would have had a chance to examine the entire issue and satisfy himself in this regard and the candidate might have got some relief. It is for this limited purpose that we had to examine this aspect of the case. However, on one point we are quite clear that the Ordinances referred to in the return of the Registrar do not vest or give any power to the Registrar to decide the disputed question of eligibility. The question of refusing or granting an eligibility certificate on certain given conditions may be within the domain of the Registrar as the executive head of the administration of the University, but, in our opinion, for deciding a right affecting a particular student, it would be impossible to say that the Registrar would be competent to decide such a right and grant or refuse relief to the students. In any event, no ordinances, regulations or any delegation of power was pointed out to us to show that this would have been permissible in view of the provisions of the Marathwada University Act or under the rules, regulations, statutes, etc., framed by the University under the Act.
In our opinion, the action of the Registrar in communicating to the Petitioner, especially when her representation was addressed to the Vice-Chancellor in this matter, has given a ground- for grievance to the Petitioner that the higher authorities of the University have not applied their minds to her case. We could not be understood to have said that the Registrar is totally incompetent to deal with the eligibility certificate. In this particular case, on the special facts of this case, when by her application, the Vice-Chancellor was specifically invited to do something in this matter, and, perhaps, this petition was for invoking his powers u/s 11 (6) (b) of the Marathwada University Act, we feel that the action of the Registrar in this case seems to have not been based on proper appreciation of the question involved. Learned Counsel for the University stated before us that the contents of the letter dated 3rd November 1983, to which we have earlier referred, saying "I am directed to state" are derived from the actual instructions of the Vice-Chancellor himself. It may or may not be true. We do not wish to doubt Counsel''s statement, but, as a matter of record, the letter does not show that it has been done on the instructions of the Vice-Chancellor and the application given to the Vice-Chancellor has been placed before him and after placing that application and after obtaining his instructions, the Registrar has replied. The contents of the letter of 3rd November 1983 only show that the Registrar has replied in a routine manner referring to the issue and then, ref erring to the provisions of Ordinance No. 207, he said that the Petitioner is not eligible for eligibility certificate. We are referring to this aspect because, during the course of hearing, we had wished that the University should have instead of inviting this Court to deal with this matter, though of this on a different level ,that is. considering the case of the Petitioner for exemption. From the Provisions of section 26, clause (9), of the Marathwada University Act, it appears that the Academic Council has power to make regulations for granting exemptions from courses of studies prescribed for qualifying degrees, diplomas and certificate and other academic distinctions. No regulation for granting exemption was pointed out to us. In the absence of any such regulation, the powers of the Vice-Chancellor u/s 11 (6) (b) of the Marathwada University Act are wide enough to cover this field also. It is against this background we had discussed the matter in regard to the grant of exemption to this particular student on the basis of her application given to the Vice-Chancellor.
25.A. The Petitioner in this case offered to appear for the examination taking English as one of the subjects. She had requested the authorities that she should be given this facility, if so desired. The Petitioner also contended that B. Ed. course itself provides teaching in Marathi and English. In such situation, insistence on the passing of the English as compulsory subject appears to us rather too rigid. The purpose of University is to encourage students for further studies and a liberal and purposive approach should be adopted in these matters. When we asked learned Counsel for the University whether it is possible to grant her exemption, the answer was that it is not possible for the University to do so. because by that it may be setting up wrong precedents. We are afraid that there is no element of wrong or bad precedents involved in this matter being set up by the University if the University is competent to consider exemptions on certain basic principles taking into consideration the particular class of students or a particular situation in which a student is found. Such a power directly exists and that is provided by the Legislature by providing section 11 (6) (b) of the Marathwada University Act. We feel that this power is available to the Vice-Chancellor alone and he being the highest officer of the University, such a power could have very well been exercised by him in this case. u/s 11 (6)(b). it is provided as under
Where any matter is required to be regulated by the Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations, but no Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations are made in this behalf, the Vice-Chancellor may, for the time being, regulate the matter by issuing such directions as he thinks necessary, and shall, at the earliest opportunity thereafter place them before the Executive Council or other authority or body concerned for approval. He may, at the same time, place before such authority or body for consideration the draft of the Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations, as the case may be, required to be made in that behalf.
We have referred to this provision only to show that if the Petitioner applied to the Vice-Chancellor, she was petitioning him to invoke his power vested in him u/s 11 (6) (b) of the Act and, in our opinion, if the matter had been really placed before him in view of this provision, we are certain that this power could have been exercised by the Vice-Chancellor. It is in this light that the Registrar''s reply dated 3rd November 1983 is found suffering from some infirmity and it is in that view of the matter that we feel that the Registrar in this case was not right in replying in the manner in which he has replied to the Petitioner.
It has also come to our notice, while dealing with the provisions of this Act, '' that it is true that the form of eligibility certificate is prescribed by the University, but, we have not been referred to any specific provision by learned Counsel for the University, except the Ordinances and regulations, which we have referred to earlier, which deal with the actual proceeding of the eligibility certificate either by the Registrar on by any specific authority as such. It would be desirable if the appropriate University authorities take such, measures, as they deem fit, to regulate the disputes of such type once for all where the University could take a charitable view. It was told that several cases are arising in respect of such disputes and, in our opinion, therefore, it would be desirable that the University may have some other machinery to deal with these questions, such as, any committee or body. This would be in the interest of the University itself, because, in this particular case, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Registrar was not justified to reply in this manner when the Petitioner had applied to the Vice-Chancellor for consideration of her case. This contention in this case may appear to be justified that her grievance was not considered by the highest officer of the University and the grounds taken by the Petitioner for raising such a contention are apparently quite probable.
In fairness, now, we may only refer to the two cases, which were referred to by the respective parties. Counsel for the Petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment reported in Principal, King George''s Medical College, Lucknow Vs. Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarwal and Another, , while elaborating his argument in a different context. It was the third argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, which we have chosen not to consider in this case, because, we are resting our decision on the true interpretation of Ordinance No. 207 itself. That argument related to the discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that is, four other candidates, who were permitted to appear for the B. Ed. Examination by the Marathwada University in the past and though the petitioner was similarly situated like all of them, the University in her case refused grant of eligibility, certificate and, therefore, learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged discrimination on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this context, he invited our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case cited supra. The respondent in that case made a specific averment in the amended writ petition that two candidates were admitted by the University concerned in that case to the same course of studies, even though they did not possess the requisite qualification on the date on which they applied for admission. Neither the University nor the Principal of the Medical College filed any counter-affidavit to the amended writ petition, with the result that the averments made by the respondent in regard to the relaxation made in favour of those two candidates remained uncontroverted. Counsel for the Petitioner before us contended that in view of the instances, which he has given of the students, who were permitted to appear for B. Ed. examination, her case should have been also treated to be similar to them by the University and there should have been no pick and choose between the similarly situated students. It is true that the return of the University in this behalf only mentions that the fact of destruction of record of relevant years and no further information has been supplied. The counter-reply is silent about the truth or otherwise of the contention or the averment of the instances given. There is neither positive denial nor admission of the averments made by the Petitioner in this behalf. There is also no specific reply that those cases were regularised out of special consideration. In these circumstances, it will have to be presumed that the University might have given them permission, but we are refraining, from dealing with this point in view of our decision on the basis of interpretation of Ordinance No. 207 itself. On the basis of the observations of the Supreme Court in the said case, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended and urged discrimination under Article 14 and therefore, he relied on the said judgment. In this case, since the University has not chosen to place sufficient material in reply to this contention, it would have been possible for the Court to take the view that the Petitioner has been discriminated as against those four candidates, but as we are not dealing with that point, we have chosen not to deal with this submission any further.
While interpreting these provision of the ordinances of the Marathwada University, learned Counsel for the University invited our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Principal, Patna College, Patna and others v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman, AIR 1900 S. C. 707. Relying on this judgment, it was contended by learned Counsel for the University- that interpretation given by the University to a particular statute, regulation, etc., should be accepted and the Court should be reluctant to reverse that interpretation. The observations, which were relied on by learned counsel in this behalf are as follows : -
Where the question involved is one of interpreting a Regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plain that the Regulation in question is capable of two constructions, and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by such authorities on the relevant Regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept.
This is a judgment wherein the Regulation relating to shortage of the attendance was in question and it appears, it was the Vice-Chancellor who was approached by the Petitioner in that case and there was a long communication and it is in that background that the Vice-Chancellor has himself decided that it was not possible to accept the request of the petitioner in that case to grant him that particular exemption relying on certain Regulation. It is exactly for these reasons we had asked learned counsel for the University in this case whether the Vice-Chancellor in this case was ever informed or was ever aware that the Petitioner had such defect in regard to applicability of Ordinance No. 207 and whether it was possible to say from the record that he has himself taken the decision or he was unable to hold that the petitioner in this case eligible to get the eligibility certificate. It is true that the interpretation put by the authority of a level of Vice-Chancellor of a University, if it is given to a particular Regulation or Ordinance, may have that weight which has to be taken into consideration and the observations of the Supreme Court have to be read in that context. In our opinion, the interpretation put by (he Registrar cannot be held to be that of the Vice-Chancellor when particularly the Petitioner requested the Vice-Chancellor to invoke his powers in this case and, therefore, in our further opinion, the judgment relied on by learned Counsel for the University for supporting his contention that the interpretation put by the University should be accepted and the Court should not be expedient in reversing it, in fact, does not in any way assist him to say that the interpretation put to Ordinance No. 207 by the Registrar is correct. Rather, the observations of the Supreme Court help the petitioner in this case.
In our opinion, the Petitiner who has passed her Intermediate Science Examination of the Board of Secondary Education of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, having passed with English as a compulsory subject and inasmuch as she was entitled to appear for B.Sc. Second Year Course on the strength of that passing available in Saugar University and was also eligible in obtaining the degree of that University and the similar situation existed in Marathwada University also, we see no infirmity in granting her the privilege or benefit which is available to candidates, who are governed by Ordinance No. 207. In our opinion, the Ordinance only requires that the candidate must pass with English as a compulsory subject at one of the years of the degree course, if the course is of three years, passing of it at a particular year would be sufficient to make her eligible provided other conditions are fulfilled.
In our opinion, therefore the Petitioner is entitled for admission to B.Ed. College as her passing of the compulsory subject of English at the Intermediate Science Examination can be taken into account and as she is seeking admission to B.Ed. College on the basis that she is a Bachelor of Science of Saugar University, which is recognised as equivalent to its B.Sc course by the Marathwada University in its own jurisdiction as, provided under the Act.
In the result, the petition succeeds. The order of the Registrar, Marathwada University at Aurangabad, dated 29th September 1983, as also the order contained in letter dated 3rd November 1983 of the Registrar are hereby quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari and the Petitioner is declared to be eligible to obtain admission at B.Ed. College subject to other conditions being fulfilled by her. The University, that is, the Marathwada University, is directed to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioner and the Petitioner will be entitled to apply for the admission in the B.Ed. College for the year 1984-85. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to the costs. Rule is accordingly made absolute.