Konsal Kishore Chaturvedi vs State of M.P.

They are heard.

Petitioners have filed this writ petition against the decision of the respondent No. 2 Jiwaji University by which the University has taken a decision to cancel the admissions granted to the petitioners.

Petitioners have prayed a relief that a direction be issued in their favour to conduct M.Ed. Examination of the petitioners. They have also prayed for a relief that they each be granted compensation to the tune of Rs. two lacs on account of illegal act of respondent No. 2 University.

Respondent No. 2 University issued an advertisement inviting applications for admission in M.Ed. Course for academic session 2013-14. It was mentioned in the advertisement that after selection the students would be allotted colleges after counselling. Petitioners appeared in the entrance examination conducted by the University for the aforesaid purpose which was held on 14/7/2013. They were declared qualified for admission in M.Ed. Course for the academic session 2013-14 by the University. Counselling was conducted by the University. Petitioners appeared in the second phase of counselling on 23/7/2013 and after verification of the documents, the petitioners were found eligible for admission in M.Ed. Course. Petitioners have also deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for each of them with the University as fees. The University allotted respondents 4 and 5 Colleges to the petitioners where they purchased prospectus of Rs. 500/- and also deposited an amount of Rs. 21,000/- each as tuition fees. Petitioners were permitted to pursue their studies in the said colleges for a period of six months. Thereafter, without giving any opportunity of hearing or any notice, respondents University discontinued admission of the petitioners in pursuance to the decision taken by the Standing Committee of the University on 17/1/2014. Copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee has been filed as Annexure P/3. In the aforesaid meeting, the University has taken the following decision in regard to the students taking admissions in the colleges which were not affiliated with the University :

Consequently, admissions of the petitioners were cancelled.

Respondents University in its reply pleaded that the colleges where the petitioners were admitted for completing the course do not have had valid affiliation from the University to conduct M.Ed. Course for the academic session 2013-14. Hence, the University cancelled the admissions of the petitioners. The University admitted in its return that it had conducted the entrance examination and had also conducted counselling in regard to admissions of the students in various colleges for pursuing their studies in M.Ed. Course.

From the facts of the case, the undisputed fact is that the Colleges in which the petitioners had taken admissions for pursuing their studies of M.Ed. Course for the academic session 2013-14 do not have had affiliation from the University to conduct the course.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in National Council for Teacher Education and Another Vs. Venus Public Education Society and Others, held that affiliation from the University before admitting students for teachers training in accordance with the provisions of NCTE Act is sine qua non. Findings of Hon''ble the Supreme Court are as under :

"On a keen scrutiny of Section 14 of the NCTE Act and Regulation 5(5) 7(9), 7(11), 8(1) and 8(12) of the 2009 Regulations, it is vivid that the university or examining body is required to issue a letter of affiliation after formal recognition is issued under Regulation 7(11) of the 2009 Regulations. Certain obligations are to be carried out by the institution after the letter of intent is received. The letter of intent was communicated to the institution as well as the affiliating body with a request that the process of appointment of qualified staff as per the policy of the State Government or University Grants Commission or university may be initiated and the institution may be provided with all assistance to ensure that the staff or faculty is appointed as per the norms of NCTE within two months. It was obligatory on the part of the institution to submit the list of the faculty, as approved by the affiliating body, to the Regional Committee. Thus understood, the letter of intent laid down the conditions which were to be fulfilled by the institution. The said letter was issued on 22-9-2011 and the formal order of recognition was issued on 27-10-2011. Clause 6 of the same clearly stipulates that the institution shall make admissions only after it obtains its affiliation from the examining body in terms of Regulation 8(12) of the 2009 Regulation. Regulation 8(12) clearly lays down a postulate that the university or the examining body shall grant affiliation only after issue of formal recognition order under Regulation 7(11) and only thereafter the institution shall make the admissions."

The Hon''ble Supreme Court further held that it is also the duty of the students to find out whether the college has proper affiliation from the University or not. Findings of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in this regard are as under :

"Without recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the university examining body, the educational institution cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution has recognition and affiliation. The institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. It is also necessary to state that the institution had the anxious enthusiasm to commercialise education and earn money forgetting the factum that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment whether their efforts, if any , had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or the students to choose between Scylla and Charybdis. On the contrary, both of them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basis motto should have been "transparency". Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the respondent on grounds of sympathy is not acceptable and, accordingly the same is repelled."

On the basis of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court, in our opinion, this Court cannot grant a relief to the petitioners that they be permitted to appear in the M.Ed. Examination. Admissions of the petitioners were cancelled because respondents 4 and 5 colleges where the petitioners had taken admissions do not have had valid affiliation from the University to conduct M.Ed. Course for the academic session 2013-14.

Next question is in regard to grant of compensation. It is an admitted fact that the University had issued an advertisement and invited applications from the students for admission in M.Ed. Course for the academic session 2013-14. Competitive examination was held by the University. Petitioners submitted applications pursuant to the advertisement, they appeared in the competitive examination and thereafter they were found eligible for admission in M.Ed. Course for the academic session 2013-14. The University also conducted counselling. Thereafter, the University also allotted colleges to the petitioners. The petitioners also deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each towards fees and thereafter the petitioners also deposited tuition fees of Rs. 21,000/- each with the colleges. They had also pursued their studies for a period of six months. Hence, the University was negligent in allotting respondents 4 and 5 colleges to the petitioners which had no affiliation from the University. When there was no affiliation from the University, the University could not have had directed the petitioners to pursue their course of M.Ed. In the aforesaid colleges. The petitioners cannot be said to have acted negligently or there was any fault on their part in getting admission in M.Ed. Course. Contrary to this, respondent No. 2 University has acted negligently and due to the negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 University, one year period of the petitioners has lost. They had also deposited tuition fees of Rs. 21,000/- each with the college. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation from the respondent University. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to award compensation to the tune of Rs. One Lakh to each of the petitioners as compensation which is payable by respondent No. 2 University.

Consequently, petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part. It is directed that respondent No. 2 University shall pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. One Lakh to each of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

No order as to costs.