Reena Chauhan vs Kurukshetra University and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—This common judgment will dispose of all the six civil writ petitions i.e. C.W.P. Nos. 9532, 10667, 20607, 13699 of 2009, 4596 and 8896 of 2010.

The facts of the case are that the Petitioners appeared for CET-B. Ed. Entrance Examination in 2007 and got admissions on 16.10.2007 after the cut off date for admission which was 13.10.2007. It is their case that they were granted the regular admission and they attended the course. The college sent their names when the examination was to be conducted and the University issued Roll Numbers and permitted them to appear in the examination. But now the result is not being declared on the ground that they had obtained admission on 16.10.2007 i.e. three days after the cut off date. The further grievance of the Petitioners is that even those students who were granted admission on 13.10.2007 were permitted three days joining time and, therefore, it was hardly of any consequence if they got admission on 16.10.2007. It is further their grievance that the Respondents cannot decline to declare the result of the Petitioners because of the reason that the University itself issued the Roll Numbers and for no fault of the Petitioners they are being victimised.

The stand of the Respondent-University is that there was no provision under which the college could grant admission after the cut off date and that some colleges which were desirous of admitting the students after the cut off date have filed writ petitions before this Court in which interim directions were given permitting the colleges to admit the students. The writ petitions were eventually dismissed and Special Leave Petitions were preferred against the same. The Supreme Court permitted them to take the admission provisionally without conferring an equitable right in favour of the Petitioners. Finally, the Special Leave to Appeal was also dismissed and the admission and result of those students who filed the SLPs and the students who were similarly situated as the Petitioners was cancelled. It was thus pleaded that the result of the Petitioners cannot be declared and their admission has to be cancelled. It was further pleaded by the University that the Petitioners who were merely permitted to take the admission on the principle of parity as the Supreme Court had granted the permission provisionally to the students whose ease was being espoused by the institutions and they in order to avoid further litigation extended the benefit to even those students who were not before the Courts.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material produced before the Court.

It is not disputed that the Petitioners were granted admission after the cut off date. It is also not in dispute that the names of the Petitioners were forwarded by the college authorities to the University for issuance of Roll Numbers which the Respondent-University did and permitted the Petitioners to take the examination. The Petitioners took the examinations and are now awaiting the result which is being declined to them only on the grounds that: (i) the admission was contrary to the rules; (ii) various colleges had filed writ petitions espousing the cause of the students who were similarly situated which petitions were dismissed and the order of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court; and iii) the students who were permitted to take the examination provisionally without any equitable right in their favour, their admissions have been cancelled and the Petitioners who were granted the permission only on the principle of parity with those students cannot have a better claim.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the University cannot be accepted. When the names were forwarded to them for issuance of Roll Numbers, they ought to have woken up to the situation to deny such Roll Numbers to all the students. The plea of ignorance cannot be accepted more so when they were already seized of a litigation initiated by the colleges who were also pleading justification for admitting the students beyond the cut off date. The students having no inkling of the intention of the University proceeded to take the examination and thus the plea of the University that as a benevolent measure they extended the principle of parity and granted the benefit of the interim directions of the Supreme Court to the Petitioners is also without any meaning for the simple reason that they never brought this to the notice of the Petitioners. Thus, it cannot be accepted that the University now rake up the plea that they had merely granted this concession to the Petitioners, for the reason that they speak of, was not to the knowledge of the Petitioners at all who took examinations in good faith believing that all was well with their admission. A Division Bench of this Court in Sukhdev Kumar v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (P&H) (D.B.) 1997 (3) S.C.T. 442 held that once a student has been given admission and allowed to take examination, his result cannot be withheld for the reason which is not justifiably attributed to him. Likewise, in Rajender Singh v. Kuruhshetra University, Kuruhshetra 1993 (4) S.C.T. 336 this Court while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, observed as follows:

From a perusal of the sequence of events, it appears to be dearly a case where the University is trying to take advantage of its own wrong. The Petitioner had admittedly not concealed any fact either at the time of the admission to his college or at the time of the submission of his form to the University. He had stated the facts clearly and categorically. The University in its turn had issued the Roll Number to the Petitioner and allowed him to take the examination. Once that had happened, in my view, it was totally arbitrary for the University to withhold the Petitioner''s result. In feet, the Apex court in Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, had been pleased to observe as under:

Once the candidate is allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear.

Likewise, in Rimmi Sehgal Minor v. Punjab School Education Board 1992 (1) S.C.T. 202 this Court observed that where the students are not at fault and there is no concealment, their right to pursue the course should not be defeated.

A Single Bench of this Court has also held that the university authorities having acquiesced to the infirmities committed by the college cannot deny the students their rights.

Upon due consideration of the entire matter and in the light of the observations of the various pronouncements extracted above, I am of the considered opinion that the Respondent-University cannot justifiably detain the result of the Petitioners more so when it acquiesced to the admissions of the Petitioners and demonstrated laxity in not apprising the students at the right time about the fault lines in their admission process and also failed to make them aware that their action in granting them permission to take examination was an exercise designedly camouflaged in benevolence.

For the aforesaid reason, I accept all the writ petitions and direct the University to declare the result of the Petitioners and not to cancel their admission.