Nargund College of Pharmacy and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for the respondents.

The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is an institution established in the year 2005 and it is permitted to run by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The petitioner is said to offer courses in B. Pharma, M. Pharma, Pharma. D and Diploma in Pharmacy courses. The Courses offered by the petitioner - institution were permitted to be started by the PCI and the AICTE with an intake of 60 seats, 64 seats and 60 seats, respectively. The said courses offered by the petitioner -institution are affiliated to respondent No. 2 - University and the affiliation is continued without any interruption. Such permission was granted for the academic year 2014-15.

It is stated that the counselling and the seat selection process for the Medical, Dental, Engineering and Ayurvedic courses commence and complete before the admission process of the Pharmacy courses. Hence, the number of students interested in pursuing pharmacy courses has been dwindling year after year in India. The petitioner - institution and other institutions have to offer seats to students at a lower price than the requisite fee, so as to keep the number of admissions high. Several concessions have been made by the petitioner institution in giving admission to such students. The petitioner - institution has also been offering seats at a concessional rate to students, who are from the weaker section of the society.

It is stated that for the academic year 2014-15, respondent No. 2 - University had notified the calendar of events for the B. Pharma, Pharma. D and M. Pharma courses vide notification dated 22.4.2014. The last date for admission was noted as 30.7.2014 and it was also notified that the last date to fill up the seats against vacancies created on account of any reasons were to be 15.8.2014. The last date for uploading the names of the students admitted on to the website of the university was notified as 16.8.2014. The academic sessions was to commence from 1.8.2014. It was specified that the admissions made needed to be uploaded on to the website of the University on or before 16.8.2014 by 5.30 pm. The petitioner -institution had proceeded to admit the students to the 1st year of B. Pharma, M. Pharma and Pharma. D Courses for the academic year 2014-15 based on their academic eligibility. Several students were admitted to the various pharmacy courses for the year 2014-15, but the petitioner - institution was unable to fill up all the sanctioned seats.

The petitioner institution having completed its admission process within the prescribed date, namely, 15.8.2014, had uploaded the names of the students on to the website of the respondent No. 2 on 16.8.2015. It is claimed that on account of a technical error in the website of the respondent - university, information was not uploaded and therefore, the petitioner had promptly contacted the university for assistance. The petitioner - institution was informed that due to high influx of users of the website on 16.8.2014, the servers of the website were down and would resume after some time. The same problem appears to have been faced by several institutions according to the petitioner. The respondent - University had however assured that the same would be looked into and the matter sorted out. Consequently, the petitioner - institution was unable to load the names of the students on 16.8.2014 or even on subsequent dates on to the website of the university. On persistent inquiries, it was learnt that the last date for online admissions had been completed and the same could not be permitted to be uploaded anymore, but the admissions so made would be approved by the University in the light of the said technical error.

It is the complaint of the petitioner that the respondent -university being aware of the problems in the maintenance of the website and the maintenance of record on the web portal of the university, had not taken steps to correct the problem. It would appear that the data of several students'' results had either been lost or wrongly maintained. Therefore, in the light of the above circumstance, the petitioner had made a representation on 25.8.2014, and had again requested the university to open the web portal of the university and permit the institution to upload the names of the students whose names were unable to be uploaded earlier, as already stated. The University had not responded to the representation and also failed to upload the names of the students on to the web portal. Inspite of several reminders, the same states of affairs continued.

It is the petitioners'' case that the students admitted by the petitioner - institution have requisite eligibility and are all well within the sanctioned quota and that they have been admitted before the last date. The only set back was that their names were not uploaded on to the website of the university. Therefore, the institution claimed that the petitioners were entitled for approval of their admissions and they ought to be permitted to take their examination as they had prosecuted their course of study and there was no fault on their part in being denying the benefit of such admission and enabling them to complete the courses.

the first instance, this court had granted an interim order and permitted the petitioners - students to take up First Term Examinations subject to the result of the petitions. The results have also been announced and they have continued the Second Term of their course.

The respondent - University has filed its statement of objections to contest the petitions. It is primarily contended that notwithstanding the several allegations by the petitioner -institution, the fact remains that the university has not been provided with the details of petitioners No. 2 to 71 and when such details were not available and were not made available within the time prescribed by the University and when a list was not submitted till the filing of the writ petitions, the question of approving their admission post facto would not arise. It is mandatory on the part of the petitioner - institution to have followed the calendar of events and when admittedly, it is not done, for whatever reasons stated by the institution, it cannot be countenanced that such delay could be condoned.

Reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanatha Charitable Trust and Others v. All India Council for Technical Education and others, , (2013)3 SCC 385, wherein it is held thus:

"The admission to academic courses should start, as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year. The seats remaining vacant should again be duly notified and advertised. All seats should be filled positively by 15th August after which there shall be no admission, whatever is the reason or ground."

Therefore, the list of students uploaded by the petitioner - institution and a hard copy which is submitted well within the time prescribed by the University has been approved. Though the petitioner - institution had furnished a list of some students whose details were approved, insofar as petitioners No. 2 to 71 are concerned, there are no particulars made available and the claim of the petitioner that it was sought to be uploaded on to the website of the university is not established. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that those students who had not been admitted within the prescribed time should now be treated as having been admitted. The respondent - university has therefore emphasized that the question of considering the admissions will not arise as the calendar of events prescribed for the admissions must be strictly adhered to and there is no scope for deviating from the calendar of events that is prescribed prior to admission.

Having considered the rival contentions, it is noticed that in a similar situation, this court has, in the case of Karavali College of Pharmacy v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 21289-309/2015 dated 24.11.2015, has observed that the petitioner - College did upload the particulars of some students, but had faced difficulty in sending particulars of other students, whom the University believed were admitted subsequent to the cut off date for making admissions. Further, the court observed that assuming that there was something wrong with the University''s website, nothing prevented the petitioner - college from sending the list of students on the next available date and there was no explanation for not sending the hard copy of the list of students. The university was required to verify whether the petitioner students were indeed admitted before the cut off date, that is 15.8.2014.

Addressing other areas of doubt, the court has ultimately held that the college shall submit the admission register, receipt book, for receiving the admission fee and the applications filed by the students whose admissions were disputed along with the eligibility certificates, statement of marks, etc., to the respondent- university within four days from the date of issuance of the order and it was open for the university to call for any additional documents such as the passport, visa, in respect of the students who have come from abroad. It was also open to the University to hold spot inspection for ascertaining the nature of ongoing academic activities in the petitioner - college. On satisfying that the petitioners - students were admitted before the cut off date and that they meet the eligibility criteria to be admitted to the course in question, the university shall approve their admission within 20 days from the date of receiving the particulars from the petitioner -college. If it was found that the petitioner - college has made admissions after the cut off date or that the petitioner - students were ineligible to be admitted to the Course in question, the University shall turn down the request for approval of their admissions.

In the light of the decision of this court in Karavali College of Pharmacy, supra, the present petitions are disposed of. The first petitioner shall submit the admission register, receipt book for having received the admission fee and the applications filed by petitioners 2 to 71 for admission, eligibility certificates and statement of marks to the respondent - University within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it shall be open to the respondent - university to call for any additional documents to ascertain that the students are indeed available in Bangalore. It is also open to the University to hold spot inspection to ascertain the nature of academic activity of the petitioner - college and thereafter, shall consider whether the students were admitted in accordance with the eligibility criteria and the calendar of events prescribed and admissions shall accordingly be considered for approval.

It is also noticed that this court has imposed costs on the petitioner - college at Rs. 2,000/- for each student. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- is awarded as costs payable to the respondent - university. The university shall ensure that the amounts are not recovered from the students by the college. The first petitioner shall file an affidavit undertaking to abide by the calendar of events hereinafter within one week from today. If there is violation of this undertaking, it shall be open to the University to initiate the process of disaffiliation.

The learned counsel for the first petitioner would point out that there are technical problems involved in the process of uploading the names and accessing the website of the university and this is a recurring problem which is ongoing one since the year 2013 and therefore, seeks leave to make representations along with other institutions, calling upon the University to upgrade itself, to enable a trouble free online procedure, which is not fraught with malfunctioning.

The learned Counsel for the respondent - University would at this submit that even assuming that the University has not been able to provide a trouble free online processing of admissions, there are other avenues available to the institutions, of which the benefit is sought to be availed of, such as seeking admission details by traditional registered post or courier. The calendar of events stipulating the manner in which the details of admission can be submitted is indeed not sufficient. It should be possible for the institutions to submit these details in any manner that is acceptable, such as by registered post or by courier or even by hand, if it could be appropriately acknowledged. There is no impediment in accepting such admissions. In addition to submitting the list of students online or other process, the institution should have alternative of adopting other modes, as already stated.

With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.