Nathu Singh Yadav And Others vs Vice Chancellor, Jiwaji University And Others

Petitioners seek direction to respondent University to conduct the examination for the course of Masters Degree in Education for academic session 2013-14 either from the institution they took admission or from any other Government college. And a direction to refund the fee and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 Lacs to each of the petitioners for having lost their career opportunity.

Pleadings on record reveal that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 09/07/2013 issued by the University for admission to M.Ed. Course 2013-14, petitioners appeared in the entrance examination conducted on 14/07/2013. Consequent to counseling, the petitioners were provisionally admitted to the course. The petitioners took admission in private colleges. It appear from the material on record that the colleges which admitted the petitioners were not having valid affiliation from the University to conduct M.Ed. Course and examination; therefore, petitioners provisional admissions were canceled with a decision to refund the fees.

We are also not commended to any material to establish that the colleges wherein petitioners took admission were duly affiliated with the University to impart the course in M.Ed.

In a similar fact situation, a Division Bench of this Court in Kaushal Kishor Chaturvedi and others Vs. State of M.P. and others [Writ Petition No. 946/2014] decided on 09/10/2014 has held:-

"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, (2013) 1 SCC 223 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."

In view whereof, the relief for admission and conducting examination for year 2013-14 cannot be granted.

As regard to compensation, true it is that in Kaushal Kishor Chaturvedi (supra), the compensation has been awarded to respective petitioners.

The said order, is however, as ordered on 15/05/2015 passed in Review Petition No. 400/2014, is directed not to be treated as a precedent. Be that as it may. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioners were provisionally admitted to the course. Thus there was no accrual of right in the petitioners. Furthermore, there is no material on record to establish that the petitioners were vigilant before taking admission in private institution as to whether courses were duly recognized and the institutions were affiliated. The petitioners are then partially responsible in taking admission. Thus the negligence or concealment of facts cannot be attributed to the respondents alone. Therefore no direction can be given to the respondents to pay compensation. The petitioners are, however, set at liberty to pursue the remedy before Civil Court.

As regard to refund of fees as held in Writ Petition No. 4757/2015 (Smt. Sapna Meena and another Vs. State of M.P. and others), it is directed that in case the fee deposited by the petitioners has not been refunded, respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 - University/ College shall refund the fee to the respective petitioners provided the petitioners make such an application.

Petition is finally disposed of in above terms. No costs.