Prabhjot Wahi vs Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar

Swatanter Kumar, J.—In the present day even a meritorious student does not get admission to the professional courses like medicines etc. primarily for the reason that the students with very high merit in the competitive examination, alone are allotted seats in order of merit. It will really be unfortunate if admissions to these courses are made by back door entry and in complete disregard to the rules and regulations framed by the University itself and contrary to the law laid down by the highest Court of the land. In such cases the Court will certainly be compelled to set aside the admissions and not to permit such students to continue their studies in the respective courses. This case is one of the glaring examples of unfair admission and unjust protection to a student who could not have been permitted to pursue the course. Having obtained admission by unfair means, the petitioner must take the consequences of cancellation of admission and discontinuation of her course as directed by the University.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 27-10-1994 and order dated 14-10-1994 on the facts which according to the petitioner are as follows:--

That the petitioner was admitted to first year of the 4-years graduation course in Dental Sciences after passing 10 + 2. These admissions were given in the Respondent-College in furtherance to the admission notice published by the College in the Tribune on 9-8-1992 for inviting applications for Bachelor of Dental Surgery course hereinafter referred to as the B.D.S. The petitioner applied for admission in the reserved category meant for the Siromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee/Institute category as provided in the brochure. The petitioner states that she was granted admission in B.D.S. Course and the admission was duly forwarded by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1, the University. The petitioner appeared in the first year annual examination in May 1994 and her result was declared as successful on 13-7-1994 and she secured good marks. The petitioner''s mother Smt. Joginder Kaur Vohra, retired as matron from the Government Service and was given re-employment after retirement on 1-9-1992 as matron in the S.G. Ramdas Hostel, Amritsar and was appointed as Warden to the Girls Hostel of Respondent No. 2 on 5-10-1992. A sum of Rs. one lakh was deposited by the petitioner on 23-9-1994 by depositing two Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs. 50,000/- each. On 20-9-1994 the petitioner deposited Rs. 65,000/- towards tuition fee and also filed the reserved category certificate from Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee, Amritsar on 11-5-1994. The University after issuing notice to the petitioner passed an order dated 14-10-1994, which was forwarded to the petitioner vide letter Reference No. 3318/IDSR/94 dated 27-10-1994 and annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/11.

To this case of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 1-University has filed detailed reply and has annexed therewith copy of the enquiry report which was conducted by an enquiry officer appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. No reply has been filed by the college in spite of sufficient time having been granted to the said respondent.

The facts as they are revealed in the written statement filed by the Respondent No. 1, the Guru Nanak Dev University, hereinafter referred to as the University, are really shocking. It is stated that the petitioner has not given any adoption deed to the college or to the University so far and in fact she was never adopted by Smt. Joginder Kaur Vohra. It is stated that she was not entitled to the admission under reserved category of S.G. P.C. for the reason that Smt. Joginder Kaur Vohra was appointed as hostel warden-cum-matron on 5-10-1992 whereas the admissions were made in September 1992 and the applications had been invited in August, 1992. It is stated that one Shri R.P.S. Boparai in connivance with the father of the petitioner, who himself is a Assistant Registrar in the University, had manipulated the admission of the petitioner in the college.

Smt. Joginder Kaur Vohra was appointed on 5-10-1992 as hostel warden and matron but she has sworn an affidavit that she was working on the said post with effect from 1-9-1992. It is specifically stated that the petitioner only managed to secure the admission in BDS course due to connivance of the then Director Dr. R. P. S. Boparai and her father, Shri Mohinder Singh, Controller of Examinations in the Respondent-University itself. It was due to this reason that the petitioner who had no claim at all to be admitted in the reserved category of S.G.P.C. managed to secure admission only because her father was a senior officer in the University. The University states that the admission of this petitioner was cancelled even earlier but the said cancellation order was got revoked and admission restored by Dr. Boparai on 12-5-1994. The petitioner in normal course was not entitled to attend the classes but because of her influence she was permitted to attend the classes of the college and the Registration number slip was got verified from the general branch by signing it and said Dr. Boparai himself carried the same to the examination branch from where he got the Roll No. issued to the petitioner and issued the forwarding letter under his own signatures addressed to the Principal of the College. The authority of Dr. Boparai has been challenged, to issue this letter. The University appointed Shri Lal Singh Aaujla, I.A.S. (Retd.) who conducted a very detailed enquiry and the copy of the said enquiry report is placed on record.

It is stated that no certificate was filed with the application which the candidate from the reserved category is required to file. The University in fact did ask for the certificates from the college vide their letter dated 30-9-1993 and 19-10-1993. It was stated in the said letters that in case the college failed to do so, the matter will be referred to higher authorities for cancellation of admission of the seats. Another letter was sent by the Deputy Registrar of the University to the Principal. Even in November 1993, the University made serious efforts to get the documents of the petitioner and also clearly stated that the admission cannot be regularised in accordance with rules and as the college and the student both had failed to submit the documents, the name of the student should be removed from the Rolls and the University be informed.

In nutshell the stand of the University is that the petitioner got a seat in violation of the rules and regulations framed by the University. She did not annex the required certificate with the application. Her admission was cancelled but was restored again by a person not competent to do so. Dr. Bhoparai had given her undesired protection and the College/Institute had failed to carry out the directions of the University. In the documents and statement given by the petitioner through her mother before the enquiry officer, there are material contradictions. The University, after giving opportunity to her, which she intentionally failed to avail of, has cancelled the admission, which was otherwise illegal and unjustified.

We have heard the parties at length at the motion stage only and with the consent of the Counsel appearing for the parties the matter was taken up for final hearing and disposal.

The case of the petitioner, though apparently appears to be very innocuous and simple but once the facts are looked more carefully and in the correct perspective, the falsehood in the case of the petitioner is apparently visible. The petitioner has tried to camouflage the true facts by giving it a simple version and has even not disclosed the true and complete facts. But for a regular enquiry which was conducted by a responsible officer as desired by the University, the true facts would have never seen the light of the day. The admission of the petitioner was cancelled in the year 1992 itself though subsequently the same was got restored by the petitioner through the influence of her father and Dr. Bhoparai, the Director. From the facts placed on record and the enquiry report it is clear as we are at pains to mention that Dr. Bhoparai has not been fair in giving undue favour and unjust protection to the petitioner, to the Institute, as well as the high standards which one would expect from such a senior officer to maintain. As per the brochure which has been annexed by the petitioner herself on record with her writ petition, in Clause 2 of the note in the application form, it is mandatory that in case of reserved seats relevant certificates should be annexed along with the application. It is an undisputed case between the parties that no certificate was enclosed with such application. This being so the college/institution giving the admission had no authority to consider the petitioner as a reserved candidate and entertain the application in that category. Further it remains a fact that the letter in favour of Smt. Jodinder Kaur Vohra appointing her as Hostel Warden-cum-Matron is dated 5-10-1992. Therefore, even if it is assumed that there was a valid adoption of the petitioner by Smt. Jodinder Kaur Vohra, still she was not eligible on the date of submission of the application and even on the date of admission. Incorrect affidavits have been submitted and inconsistent stories have been put forward by the petitioner and Mrs. Joginder Kaur Vohra in the writ petition, statements before the Enquiry Officer and in the documents on which the reliance is sought to be placed before us.

The stand taken by the University is not only plausible but is fully supported by documentation. The University appointed an Enquiry Officer Shri Lal Singh Aaujla, I.A.S. (Retd.) who conducted a detailed enquiry by associating Mrs. Joginder Kaur Vohra, alleged to be the mother of the petitioner, and various employees of the University and the college.

We consider it appropriate to reproduce certain relevant portions from the enquiry report with regard to the admission of the petitioner in the college:--

"According to the affidavit Prabhjot was her daughter and the only legal heir of moveable and Immovable property of Mrs. Joginder Kaur Vohra. This affidavit was filed instead of the original certificate from the President or Secretary of S.G.P.C., to justify the admission of Prabhjot in the B.D.S. Part-I Course for the year 1992-93 under the S.G.P.C. category. Mrs. Joginder Kaur Vohra stated before me on 20-7-1994 that she had adopted Prabhjot, daughter of her sister when she was two months old but there was no provision for admission of an adopted son or daughter published in the prospectus of the college for the year 1992-93 or 1993-94. It is, therefore, not understood how the officials of the General Branch, without any request from Prabhjot approved her admission, cancelled earlier by the D.R. (G). Shri Amarjit Singh Pabla, frankly confessed before me that he was not competent to revoke the orders passed by his Superintendent D.R.(G). The above mentioned noting on the affidavit of Mrs. Joginder Kaur Vohra has clearly established that the document brought by Dr. Boparai on 12-5-1994 was dealt with supersonic speed and illegal orders were passed by Sh. Amarjit Singh Pabla, A.R.(G.) the same day which he was not competent to do."

"Now coming to the affidavit in which Mrs. Joginder Kaur Vohra stated that she was working as Hostel Warden and Matron in Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Amritsar since 1-9-1992, has been falsified by herself vide her statement made before me on 20-7-1994. She deposed that she was working since 5th October, 1992 in the Institute. In any case the lists of admitted students for which interviews were held on 13/14-9-1993 were prepared in the last week of September, 1992, according to the statement of Sh. Bath, Superintendent, when Mrs. Joginder Kaur Vohra was not the Warden in the Institute. Moreover, Prabhjot could not claim her admission under S.G.P.C. category on the basis of this affidavit being an adopted daughter who is not eligible as provided in the prospectus.

Another glaring irregularity has come to my notice. Dr. Boparai got the cancelled admission of Prabhjot restored from Sh. Amarjit Singh Pabla, A.R. (G) illegally on 12-5-1994 as pointed out above. He got registration number slip verified from the General Branch by signing it and carried the same to the exam, branch from where he got the roll number issued. Then he personally collected the forwarding letter under his own signatures addressed to the Principal with which the roll number was enclosed (photocopies attached). He was not authorised to do so. All this reflects his personal interest in the candidate whose admission was irregular."

"Dr. Boparai exploited the officers/officials of the University. They placed in his hands proving thereby that Dr. Boparai could get any irregularity done from them, thus, lowering the image of the University. He stooped to the lowest ebb by not passing on the letters addressed to the Principal, relating to the cancellation of admission of Ms. Khurana and Prabhjot wrongly admitted under S.G.P.C. category, by, collecting the same personally from the University office in an unauthorised manner. He told blatant lies in his statement made before me from time to time. He was responsible for irregular admissions of Ms. Khurana and Prabhjot during the session 1992-93 and Henna Sandhawalia during 1993-94 knowing fully well that all of them were not eligible under the S.G.P.C. category according to the prospectus."

From the above discussion, we are satisfied that the petitioner had obtained admission and in fact continued her course primarily because of the influence in the University and the connivance of Dr. Boparai, Director of the Institute. It is a matter of regret that this is a professional course where the students of high merit are deprived of admission on the basis of high percentage secured by them in competitive examinations than the others, and such kind of a back door entry or admission method should not be adopted by the colleges for favouring certain students. It was stated before us that the University has already filled up the seats which are regular seats as per the merit list prepared on the basis of competitive examination known as P.M.T.

One of the arguments raised by Shri H. S. Giani Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioner is that she was not afforded adequate opportunity and that as the petitioner had continued her course for a considerable period she should be permitted to complete the course. Both these submissions are liable to be rejected because in our view due opportunity was granted to the petitioner and she failed to reply to those letters, though Mrs. Joginder Kaur Vohra had fully participated in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Dr. Boparai has given undue protection to the candidate. We are also not in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the candidate should be permitted to complete her course. The Supreme Court in various cases has already held that the admissions obtained by the candidates by misrepresentation or by influence must not be permitted to take, ad vantage of their own wrongs. In this regard it will be appropriate to refer to the case titled as Bina Philopose v. State of Kerala .

If the petitioner had appeared in the entrance examination and had got admission as per her merit, even though under some category we still could have considered her case. It is an admitted case before us that she did not appear in the entrance examination at all for this Course. On the contrary her admission prima facie is in violation of rules, regulations and instructions published in the brochure. The revocation of order of cancellation of her earlier admission was passed by an authority not competent to do so, and roll number was issued to her in a clandestine manner. The directions issued by the University were violated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case reported as Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, and Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and others, . Both these judgments do not lend any help to the case of the petitioner. In the present case there is a definite averment of misrepresentation in obtaining admission in connivance with the Director for the Institute. A student who obtains admission by adopting such methods cannot be permitted to take advantage and plead estoppel against the authorities. Another distinguishing feature in the present case is that the University had cancelled the admission once earlier which was revoked in violation of the rules and by a person not having any authority to revoke the same. Furthermore, the Principal/Director of the Institution/College intentionally failed to carry out the directive issued by the University and even failed to submit the basic necessary documents without which the application itself was incomplete. In the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner there was a specific acquiescence on the part of the College and University both. As such the cases are distinguishable on facts.

Having discussed the merits of this case in detail we are of the opinion that admission given to the petitioner was in violation of the norms set down and the rules and regulations framed by the University itself. This kind of admission (s) would entirely frustruate the concept of merit, which certainly cannot be permitted. It is equally a settled rule of law that fraud and misrepresentation vitiate the action and the parties cannot be held by such acts. Estoppel being a rule of evidence must till in favour of equity where the need so arises. We cannot permit the applicants in whose favour there is no equity, as is clear from the facts narrated above, and direct the University to continue the studies of the petitioner. In Punjab Engineering College Chandigarh through its Principal Vs. Sanjay Gulati and Others, , the Supreme Court after discussing the law at length and especially warning the Universities and the students who are given admissions in clandestine manner and in violation of the norms set down and the rules and regulations laid down for the said purpose. The Court held as under:--

"Students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested persons. This has virtually come to mean that one must get into an educational institution by means, fair or foul. Once you are in, no one will put you out. Law''s delays work their wonders in such diverse fashions. We find that this situation has emboldened the erring authorities of educational institutions of various States to indulge in violating the norms of admission with impunity. They seem to feel that the Courts will leave the admissions intact, even if the admissions are granted contrary to the rules and regulations. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted. Some day, not distant, if admissions are quashed for the reason that they were made wrongly, it will have to be directed that the names of students who are wrongly admitted should be removed from the rolls of the institution,"

While laying the above principles the Supreme Court had directed that the admissions cannot be allowed to remain intact.

There is no element of doubt in our mind that the petitioner has not secured this admission in accordance with rules and has no right much less a legitimate right to continue in the course. There would ever be a serious doubt as to whether the petitioner could be given admission under this category in lieu of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., . This question was neither pleaded nor raised for our consideration during the course of arguments on behalf of the respondents. We are not expressing any views in this behalf.

We are conscious of the fact that this is likely to visit the petitioner with certain difficulties but we are equally conscious that the times have come when the Courts must not only condemn such arbitrary actions of the instrumentalities of the State and Autonomous Bodies but must also not permit the wrong doers to take advantage of their own wrongs.

In these circumstances we dismiss the writ petition of the petitioner. But direct that the petitioner should be refunded the sum of Rs. One Lakh which Mrs. Joginder Kaur Vohra had deposited by means of Fixed Deposit receipts, as well Rs. 65,000/- being tuition fee which the petitioner had deposited, within one month from today.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.