Poonam Singh,Chetna Singh vs Allahabad University & Ors.

R.H. Zaidi, J.—In both the aforesaid petitions common questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9664 of 1993 is treated as the leading case.

By means of this petition petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2221993, passed by the respondent No. 1 and to direct the respondents to permit her to continue her studies in B.A. PartII of the academic Session 199293 as well as to permit her to reside in the Hostel, i.e. Priyadarshani Hostel of Allahabad University on payment of usual charges.

The facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are that the petitioner passed her High School Examination in 1989 and in the year 1991 Intermediate Examination, from the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate, Allahabad. She also obtained N.C.C. Certificate in the year 1991. Thereafter, she appeared in the entrance test for her admission in B.A. PartI in Allahabad University, Allahabad, in which she was secured 509 computed marks and qualified for admission in the said class. Thereafter she has allotted three subjects i.e. Medieval History, Hindi and Education and was allowed to attend the classes. Petitioner was also allotted a room in the Priyadarshani Hostel of Allahabad University, Allahabad. The petitioner deposited the requisite admission fee and was thereafter issued an admission card, bearing Roll No. 3780. In the year 199192 petitioner appeared in B.A. PartI Examination, but her result was withheld and thereafter by means of a show cause notice dated 17111992 she was called upon to appear before the enquiry committee on 6121992 at the Law Faculty Building, Chatham Lines Campus, University of Allahabad. It is stated that on the date and time fixed in the notice referred to above, the petitioner went to the specified place with her father, but on the said date and time neither any enquirywas conducted nor any meeting of the enquiry committee was held, but thereafter vide order dated 222 1993 the petitioner''s admission in B.A. PartI of the year 1991 92 academic session was cancelled by the admission committee on the basis of the enquiry report. It was also stated that examination and the result of B.A. PartI of the petitioner was also cancelled by the examination committee. On the basis of the aforesaid order the petitioner was required to vacate the hostel and was directed not to pursue her studies further in B.A. Part II class. She therefore approached this Court and filed the present petition for the abovementioned reliefs.

Writ petition was entertained by this Court and on 2331993 following order was passed:

"Learned Counsel for the University, Sri Haider Husain, Advocate, prays for and is granted a week''s time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a period of one week thereafter. List immediately after two weeks on 8493.

In the meantime, operation of the order dated 22293 shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that the seat, which was occupied by the petitioner in Priyadarshani Hostel, University of Allahabad, shall be kept vacant and shall not be allotted to anybody else."

Thereafter vide order dated 1471993 this Court permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination of B.A. PartII. However, it was directed that the result of the examination shall be subject to the decision of this petition.

On behalf of the respondents a counteraffidavit has been filed controverting the facts stated in the writ petition. It has been asserted that admissions in B.A. PartI, B.Com. PartI and B.Sc. PartI were made in 199192 academic session on the basis of entrance test. The result of the said test was declared but the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of the candidates qualified in the said test as she did not qualify for the admission. It has been stated that the girl students who have secured 503 and the boys who have secured computed marks up to 505 were admitted in B.A. PartI in the aforesaid academic session. Since the petitioner secured only 412 computed marks she was not qualified to be admitted in the said class. It has also been asserted that on receipt of complaints regarding illegal admission on the basis of forged documents, a committee consisting of five members was constituted to enquire into the said complaints and to submit its report. The said committee issued notices to the students concerned who were alleged to have obtained fictitious admission. Petitioner was also issued a show cause notice but she did not appear before the enquiry committee. The enquiry committee thereafter submitted a report against the petitioner, which was placed before the admission committee. The admission committee accepted the report of the enquiry committee and the admission of the petitioner was thereafter cancelled. In view of the said facts it was asserted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed.

In rely to the facts stated in the counteraffidavit a rejoinderaffidavit was filed by the petitioner, controverting the facts stated in the counteraffidavit, reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition. It was specifically stated that the petitioner secured 509 computed marks in the entrance test and was therefore, legally entitled to be admitted in B.A. PartI. It was also stated that on the strength of the order passed by this Court, she after appearing in the B.A. PartI also appeared in B.A. Part I and II Examinations, but the result of the said examinations have not been declared.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the, petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order dated 2221993, the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, it also did not contain the reason and it was nothing but an order in cyclostyle form, without application of mind to the facts of the present case. It was submitted that the petitioner has secured as many as 509 computed marks in the entrance test and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Chairman of the Admission Committee and other teachers and professors. Attention of this Court was also invited to the photostat copy of the said certificate, contained in Annexure6 to the writ petition, the validity and genuineness of which was not disputed by the respondents. It was, therefore, asserted that the petitioner was entitled to be admitted in asmuch as the students inferior in merit to her i.e. who have secured less than 509 computed marks were admitted in B.A. PartI.

On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner failed to qualify the entrance test and secured less than qualifying marks in the said test, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be admitted in the aforesaid classes. It was urged that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of being heard to explain her case before the enquiry committee, but she did not avail of that opportunity, therefore, the order impugned in the present petition cannot be said to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He has also placed before this Court a copy of the report of the inquiry committee.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The questions which require consideration in this case are as to whether the petitioner had qualified the entrance test and secured qualifying marks in the said test and whether she was on the basis of the same entitled to be admitted in B.A. PartI for the academic session 199192.

In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it was stated as under:

"That the petitioner was declared successful in admission test held by the University and her comprehensive computed marks are 509. The petitioner was duly allotted three subjects for study namely Medieval History, Hindi and Education. A photocopy of the said certificate duly issued and signed by the Chairman of Admission Committee is filed as Annexure6 to this department."

In the counteraffidavit, the reply of paragraph 5 of the writ petition has been given as under:

"That paragraph 5 of the writ petition is not admitted. The petitioner failed in Entrance Test as stated above, got only 152 marks, was not entitled for admission."

Thus, it is apparent that the facts stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition have not been controverted, specifically as required under the rules. The genuineness and the validity of Annexure6 to the writ petition has not been disputed or denied by the respondents in the counteraffidavit. A perusal of Annexure6 to the writ petition reveals that the petitioner secured as many as 509 marks. The same was certified and bears the signatures of the Chairman of the Admission Committee as well as other teachers and professors concerned. It also reveals that petitioner was allotted subjects of Medieval History, Hindi and Education. The respondents having failed to deny the validity and genuineness of the said certificate are estopped from contending that the petitioner has secured less than 509 computed marks in the entrance test for admission in B.A. PartI. After the said certificate was issued, petitioner was also issued admit card to attend the classes and was allotted seat in the hostel on the basis of which she has pursued her studies and appeared in B.A. PartI Examination.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion the respondents are estopped from contending that the admission of the petitioner was not proper or that she was not entitled to pursue her studies in B.A Part I. It has also been admitted in the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that students who have secured lesser marks than the petitioner and were inferior in merit were admitted in B.A. PartI. A reference in this regard may be made to a student who has secured 505 computed marks, but was admitted in B.A. PartI and his admission or examination was not cancelled. Therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to cancel the admission of the petitioner and the examination of B.A. PartI, by means of the impugned order dated 2221993. It may be noted that no documentary evidence has been placed on the record by the respondent with the counteraffidavit to show that petitioner has secured less than 509 marks.

Further, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard or to show cause as well as to explain her case before or after the report of the enquiry committee was submitted against her. The copy of the enquiry report was also not supplied to her, but her admission and result of the examinations were cancelled vide order dated 2221993. The said order also does not contain reasons for the conclusion arrived at by the respondents. The impugned order dated 2221993 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

The only distinction in the case of the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9665 of 1993 is that she has secured 505 marks in the admission test. In other respects the facts of the case are exactly the same as in the case of Km. Poonam Singh, i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9664 of 1993. It has been admitted in the counteraffidavit that the girl students who have secured 505 computed marks in the said test were eligible and entitled to admission and were admitted accordingly. In paragraph 6 of the counteraffidavit, it has been stated that only those boy students who secured computed marks up to 505 and girl students who secured 503 marks were admitted in B.A. PartI for the session 199192. Thus, Km. Chetna Singh is also entitled to the relief claimed by her and her petition is also liable to be allowed.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present cases and in vi.w of the aforesaid discussion, these petitions deserve to be allowed.

The writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 2221993 are quashed. Since the petitioners have already appeared in B.A. PartI, II and III Examinations, but their results have not yet been declared, the respondents are therefore directed to treat the admissions of the petitioners as valid and to declare the result of the aforesaid examinations of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 1.

No order as to costs.