Narinder Singh vs Kurukshetra University and Another

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The petitioner was a student of Bachelor of Arts in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. While studying in the final year of Bachelor of Arts, he applied for LL.B. (Professional) three years course in the respondent university. The last date for submission of the application was 21.6.1999. The detailed marks sheet was not available at that time. The result of the petitioner was declared. The petitioner qualified in the entrance examination. The merit list for admission to the First Year LL.B course was to be prepared in the manner :-

Marks obtained in the Entrance Test : 50% Mark obtained in the qualifying : 50% examination. Besides this, weightage for the purpose of merit was also given to the candidates who were eligible for admission. 5 marks were given to the candidates who passed the qualifying examination from Kurukshetra University, 5 marks were given to the recipients of National Talent Award from N.C.E.R.T., 5 marks were given to the candidates having consistently good academic record i.e. throughout first class in the first attempt and 5 marks for the N.C.C. cadets. He was entitled to 5 marks under the clauses, namely those who have passed qualifying examination from Kurukshetra University and those who have good academic record.

As per the prospectus the petitioner was to submit proof of his having passing B.A. examination by 19.7.1999 failing which his candidature would have stood automatically cancelled ipso-facto. Suddenly the petitioner had an attack of fever and he was advised complete rest. Consequently, the petitioner could not approach the respondent-University before the said date to submit the marks sheet. When the petitioner felt better, he approached the university on 23.7.1999 and took the marks sheet, from the petitioner and filed it in the diary. The respondent-University placing reliance on the record under which the candidates have to submit all the documentary evidence by 19.7.1999, cancelled the admission of the petitioner. He had in any case submitted the marks sheet before the first date of counseling i.e. 27.7.1999.

This action of the respondents is being challenged asserting that the fact of attaining a particular qualification is essencial. The proof of attainment can follow later. The fact of such attainment can be communicated to the selection committee before selection. Otherwise also it has been pointed that the petitioner had submitted the necessary certificates before the first counseling and the clause that if the necessary proof of having passed the B.A. examination (detailed marks) is not submitted by a particular date, the appointment would be cancelled as invalid.

In the written statement filed, the respondents have contested the petition. It has been asserted that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that as per the prospectus he was required to submit the marks sheet or other documentary evidence by 19.7.1999. Otherwise the candidature for admission was to be cancelled automatically. The petitioner did not submit the marks sheet by the stipulated date and, therefore, his candidature for appointment stood cancelled. As per the prospectus the last date for submission had expired. The first list was displaced on 27.7.1999. There were 662 applications to the course. 152 candidates had not submitted the detailed marks. The merit list is prepared by taking 50% marks of the entrance test and 50% marks of the qualifying examination besides weightage. Since the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates had not put in documentary evidence, their applications were rightly not taken into consideration. The petitioner submitted an application to the Chair Person, Department of Law on 22.7.1999. It has not been mentioned that as to why the marks sheet was not given in time. Therefore, the respondents challenged the statement of the petitioner that he was not well. It is alleged that 17 applications came after the date and none of them had been considered by the respondents. The admissions have been given strictly in accordance with the marks and the prospectus.

The facts are not in controversy. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner had qualified in the entrance examination. It is also not in controversy that the marks sheet had to be submitted by 19.7.1999. As per the brochure if the marks sheet was not submitted by the stipulated date, the candidature of the petitioner would stand automatically cancelled. The fact is also not in controversy that the petitioner did not submit his marks sheet by 19.7.1999.

On the strength of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that what is material is that petitioner should have passed the examination. The proof could be submitted later on. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria and Ors. v. Dr. C. Mathew and Ors. AIR 1980 S.C. 1230. It was held :-

"It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma, the proof thereof sub-serves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor. The prospectus does say :

(4)(b): 10% to Diploma holders in the selection of candidates to M.S., M.D., courses in the respective subjects or subspecialities.

Certificates to be produced:- In all cases true copies of the following documents have to be produced :-

xxxx xxxx xxxx k) Any other certificates required along with the application.

This composite statement cannot be read formalistic fashion. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question.

It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date, what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense."

Indeed the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same because though proof in a particular case may not become important but in the case of Charles K. Skaria (supra), the result was declared after the cut off date. It was this important fact that prevailed. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the ratio decidendi of the decision.

In that event, the learned counsel assailed the clause by virtue of which it had been directed that the marks sheet must be submitted by 19.7.1999. But once again as one analysis the fact, it is clear that it is a reasonable way of adjudicating the same. Unless the marks sheet is given, the university will not know as to who are the qualified candidates. The list of the successful candidates can only be published after the marks sheet is made available. In our country hundreds of aspirants take examinations. A handful of them are successful. It is not free for all and if marks sheet can be submitted at any time, the result would be that the list would never be finalised. The contention, therefore, necessarily must fail and is rejected.

Yet another limb of the argument was that in other courses this has not been insisted upon by the University. It was urged that it tantamounts to discriminating the petitioner. Once again the contention is totally devoid of any substance. The equality would be amongst equals. If in other disciplines, there is any other method adopted, then the petitioner cannot say that he is discriminated. So for as admission to LL.B. course is concerned, it reveals that there were 17 applications who came after 19.7.1999. none of them has been given admission. It is, therefore, established beyond any pale of controversy that in fact there is nodiscrimination.

In support of his argument learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court, in the case of Sarita Rana v. Kurukshetra University and Anr., Civil Writ Petition No. 12184 of 1998, decided on 30.9.1998. As it is well known that a decision would be a precedent if it is on all force of facts or if a particular point of law is decided. In the case of Sarita Rana (supra) this court found that there has been discrimination qua Sarita Rana. Certificates of other candidates had been received after 13.7.1998 (in that case). It was this fact that prompted this Court to allow the petition of Sarita Rana. As noticed above, this is not so with any other candidate similarly placed, Consequently, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the cited judgment.

In fact we knew from the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. The State of Punjab etc., and the decision of the subsequent Full Bench in the case of Raj Singh Vs. The Maharshi Dayanand University and Others, that the University or the concerned college must stick to the prospectus vis-a-vis that particular year. The prospectus will have the force of law. In fact the Full Bench deprecated the deviation from the prospectus. Herein the petitioner failed to submit the necessary certificate by 19.7.1999. Thus, there was justification in not allowing the petitioner to be admitted. He had missed the bus. There cannot be special treatment for the petitioner.

For these reasons, the writ petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed. No order as to costs.