AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The National Law University, Jodhpur has preferred this
appeal to question correctness of the order dated 8.11.2016,
passed by learned Single Bench, accepting SB Civil Writ Petition
No.5272/2014, with a direction to allow the respondent herein to
take admission in the sixth semester by way of transfer from
Hidayatullah National Law University to National Law University,
Jodhpur, after completing the necessary formalities.
The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the
appeal is as follows:-
The implementation committee of the "Common Law
Admission Test - 2014" (hereinafter referred to as ''CLAT-2014'')
met on 16.11.2013 at Gujarat National Law University,
Gandhinagar and settled modalities to organise CLAT-2014. The
committee also decided a broad manner of admission as a result
to CLAT-2014.
As decided by the committee, a complete schedule of
the specific activities pertaining to CLAT-2014 was also declared
and according to that the CLAT-2014 Office was to be closed for
admission process on 30.6.2014.
As per the schedule declared, CLAT-2014 was
conducted by the Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
and subsequent thereto on 6.7.2014 it was notified that the CLAT
Office shall not be allocating any provisional admissions to the
vacant seats available at any of the National Law Universities and
the candidates interested in seeking admission against vacant
seats at any of the National Law Universities may directly contact
the interested National Law University for further process. These
vacant seats were open to be filled in by different National Law
Universities only from amongst the candidates who participated in
CLAT-2014.
The National Law University, Jodhpur, appellant herein,
initiated a process to fill up the vacant seats under Non Resident
Indian (hereinafter referred to as ''NRI'') category. Shri Shreyansh
Bhandawat, respondent herein, applied to be considered for his
admission against vacant seats by claiming himself as a candidate
''NRI Sponsored''. The appellant university selected three
candidates viz. Tanvi Annapareddy, Aishwarya Murli and Rishab
Singhle in its undergraduate course.
Being aggrieved by grant of admissions to the
abovenamed three persons and non selection of himself in
undergraduate course, the respondent approached Writ Court with
assertion that selection of Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle was
illegal as they never applied under the category of ''NRI''. It was
also submitted that by granting admission to ineligible persons the
appellant university has taken away the right of the respondent to
be admitted in the course concerned.
A reply to the writ petition on behalf of the appellant
university was filed with a specific stand that after completion of
the process of CLAT-2014 the process for admission to vacant
seats available with the university was initiated as allowed under
the notification dated 6.7.2014 and that is nothing to do with
CLAT-2014, except that the persons appeared in the CLAT-2014
were only eligible to be considered for admission against the
vacant seats. As per the university, the vacant seats were to be
filled in from amongst the persons belonging to ''NRI'' category
and, therefore, Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle were admitted
to the undergraduate course in the category aforesaid. The
respondent, as per the university, did not apply for admission
against the vacant seats and as such no occasion was there to
consider his candidature for admission in undergraduate course
against the seats vacant. It was further stated that even in the
CLAT-2014 the respondent applied under the category of ''NRI
Sponsored'' for which no seat was available while making
admissions after completion of CLAT-2014 process and as per the
notification dated 6.7.2014.
Learned Single Bench, after considering the arguments
advanced by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the rival
parties, held that in light of the undertaking given by the
candidates participating in CLAT-2014, it was not open for the
university to change category of the candidates and Aishwarya
Murli and two candidates admitted in the undergraduate course
did not apply under the ''NRI'' category, therefore, they were not
entitled to be admitted against the seats of ''NRI'' quota. Learned
Single Bench, while arriving at the conclusion as above, further
held that if the category of two other candidates was changed,
then no impediment was there in treating the respondent as a
person belonging to ''NRI'' though he applied as ''NRI Sponsored''
candidate. Learned Single Bench by relying upon the document
Anx.A/4 also concluded that the respondent applied on 12.7.2014
at 03:04 AM for admission in undergraduate course as per the
notification dated 9.7.2014.
In appeal, on behalf of the appellant, the argument
advanced is that learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the
undertaking given by the candidates while participating in CLAT-
2014 is nothing to do with the admissions against the vacant seats
available which were to be filled in by the university concerned
independently as that is apparent from the notification dated
6.7.2014. The appellant university initiated a fresh process of
selection at its own on 9.7.2014 and in pursuance thereto the
persons belonging to ''NRI'' category were admitted in
undergraduate course. The respondent herein never applied for his
admission to undergraduate course in pursuance to the
notification dated 9.7.2014 and as such there was no occasion for
the university to consider his candidature. For the sake of
argument, even if it is assumed that he applied as per document
Anx.A/4 for admission to undergraduate course, then too he was
not entitled for admission in the course concerned being a
candidate said to be from the category of ''NRI Sponsored''.
While meeting with the arguments advanced by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of university, Shri Sundeep
Bhandawat, counsel for the respondent herein, submits that the
admission to the vacant seats is not a new process of admission
but in continuation to CLAT-2014. The details given in the
application form while appearing in CLAT-2014 were irrevocable
and, therefore, the learned Single Bench rightly held that
Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle were admitted to
undergraduate course though they were not from ''NRI'' category,
as such, the respondent herein is also entitled to be admitted in
the course concerned though he applied under the category of
''NRI Sponsored''.
We have heard the rival submissions.
The case of the respondent herein before the learned
Single Bench was that in pursuance to the notification dated
9.7.2014 he applied for admission to undergraduate course, but
his candidature was not considered without any just and valid
reason but two other persons were admitted though they
represented themselves in the categories other than ''NRI'' while
participating in CLAT-2014. Their category in light of the
undertaking given could have not been changed while examining
their candidature for admission against the vacant seats. Learned
Single Bench relied upon the undertaking so given, which reads as
follows:-
"I hereby affirm that the information furnished in the application form and the documents/certificate uploaded are true and no material information has been concealed. If any information is found to be false, incorrect or misleading, competent authority shall have the authority to cancel my candidature/admission without any further inquiry or notice. I undertake to abide by the Regulations and disciplinary rules already in force and such other rules that may be made by the respective Universities from time to time, if admitted. I further undertake that the categories to which I belong as indicated by me in the application form shall be irrevocable."
Learned Single Bench treated the admissions against
the vacant seats as a part of CLAT-2014.
On minute examination of entire scheme of CLAT-2014,
we are satisfied that the vacant seats were open to be filled in by
respective National Law Universities at their own without taking
into consideration the facts stated in the application forms to
appear in CLAT-2014.
As already stated, the entire process of admission
through CLAT-2014 was closed on 30.6.2014. On 6.7.2014 it was
made clear by the competent authority of the CLAT-2014 that
"CLAT Office shall not be allocating any provisional admissions to
the vacant seats available at any of the National Law Universities.
The candidates interested in seeking admission against the vacant
seats at any of the National Law Universities, may directly contact
the interested National Law University for further process". In
pursuance to the notification dated 6.7.2014, the appellant
university initiated a process on 9.7.2014 for admission against
vacant seats through the candidates belonging to ''NRI'' category
only. Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle this time applied for
admission under ''NRI'' category and to substantiate that they also
submitted certificates issued by the Embassy of India/Consulate
General of India of the respective countries. Suffice to mention
here that as per the norms settled, a person whose parent or any
one of his/her parent is ''NRI'', may apply for admission in
undergraduate course against the seat earmarked for ''NRI''
category.
Learned Single Bench, while accepting the writ petition,
failed to notice the facts that the CLAT-2014 came at closure on
30.6.2014, on 6.7.2014 it was made clear that the vacant seats
are required to be filled in by the respective National Law
Universities independently and the aspirant for admission is
required to approach the university and further that the appellant
university on 9.7.2014 initiated an independent process of
admission wherein Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle applied
afresh by representing themselves as ''NRI''. So far as standing in
merit of CLAT-2014 is concerned, suffice to mention that the same
was taken into consideration by the appellant university only to
ease the process of selection and the mere adoption of that, while
considering candidature of the candidates for admission in
undergraduate course, would not result into change of nature of
process of admission or to say to include the fresh process of
admission as a part of CLAT-2014. In view of whatever stated
above, we are of considered opinion that learned Single Bench
grossly erred while arriving at the conclusion that the appellant
university committed a wrong while admitting Aishwarya Murli and
Rishab Singhle to undergraduate course by changing their
category at its own.
While parting with the case, we would also like to
observe that the process of admission in the undergraduate course
in question commenced in the month of July, 2014 and that came
to an end immediately thereafter. The respondent herein, as a
consequence to CLAT-2014, was admitted in undergraduate course
at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, Chhatisgarh and
on the date of the judgment by Single Bench, he was undergoing
his fifth semester. As informed to us, he is now appearing in sixth
semester examination. In our considered opinion, no direction for
admission in sixth semester by way of transfer could have been
given after a lapse of a period of more than two years and that too
without ascertaining that whether the rules applicable with the
Hidayatullah National Law University as well as the appellant
university allows for such transfer or not. As per learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant university, such transfer is
impermissible. A direction to admit a student in academic course
at a belated stage may cause not only administrative bug
academic problems too for the academic institutions. It is well
settled that in the matters pertaining to admissions in academic
institutions, the Courts are required to maintain a restrain in
interference and that should not be made if the denial of the relief
claimed causes enormous injury, which in no manner could have
been healed otherwise. In the case in hand, as already stated, the
respondent is undergoing five years law course at Hidayatullah
National Law University, Raipur and has already qualified five
semesters of the course concerned. In the event of failure of the
petition for writ, his career shall not be adversely effected,
whereas, the admission with appellant university at this stage
shall cause huge administrative inconvenience and would cause
serious injuries to the university administration. Looking to this
aspect also the direction given by learned Single Bench is not
sustainable.
In entirety, for the reasons given above, we are inclined
to accept this appeal. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The
judgment impugned dated 8.11.2016 passed by learned Single
Bench is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the respondent
herein is dismissed.