Shilpi vs The Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction for quashing order dated 28.01.2010 vide which her candidature/admission to B.Ed. course for the year 2008-2009 has been cancelled. The petitioner would also pray for writ of mandamus to declare her result of B.Ed. course, which was held in June/July, 2009 alongwith other consequential relief. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent/University has acted in an arbitrary manner, which would also be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The applications were invited for B.Ed. Course in June 2009 for Sessions 2008-2009. The petitioner has applied for B.Ed. Course on the basis of certificates of B.A. Part I, II and III. She was successful in Common Entrance Test. On that basis, she was granted admission by respondent No. 2/College i.e. C.T. College of Education, Jalandhar. On 10.12.2008, letter was issued by the University for cancelling the candidature of the petitioner. On representation made by the petitioner, the University had granted the provisional roll number on the basis of which the petitioner could sit in the final examination. When the result of the petitioner was not being declared, she has filed this writ petition and has impugned the cancellation of candidature, which ultimately has been ordered on 28.01.2010.

The counsel for the petitioner pleads that once the petitioner was allowed to appear in Common Entrance Test, which she passed and was placed on merit whereafter she was admitted to B.Ed. Course, she could not put to prejudice on any count whatsoever.

The petitioner has sought admission in B.Ed. Course on the basis of B.A. (Hons) in Mathematics, which she had qualified from the University of Delhi. It is on the basis of this certificate that the petitioner was permitted to take Common Entrance Test and thereafter was admitted to the training course for B.Ed. As per the counsel, there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner has also passed M.Sc. (Mathematics) through distance education. The candidature of the petitioner has been now cancelled on the ground that she has not secured 45% marks in B.A. examination in aggregate and she is now termed ineligible for getting admission to B.Ed. Course.

In response to notice issued, University has filed reply. The reasons for which the admission of the petitioner is cancelled are disclosed in the reply. It is stated that the petitioner is ineligible for admission to B.Ed. course and was able to appear in the Entrance Test by misrepresenting the facts. The doctrine of estoppel is urged against the petitioner on the ground of her ineligibility. It is stated that the Entrance Test is not conducted by respondent/Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU) and this test was conducted by Punjabi University, Patiala. Initially, the petitioner had not impleaded Punjabi University as party respondent. Subsequently, on an objection being raised by respondent/GNDU, Punjabi University was also impleaded as party respondent.

The petitioner has been granted admission on the basis of Common Entrance Test held by Punjabi University, Patiala in Lovely Institute of Education, Phagwara and subsequent she was admitted to C.T. College of Education, Jalandhar on the basis of second B.Ed. Counselling conducted by the said University. It is stated that the admission was granted by the College without properly going into the eligibility of the petitioner for admission to the B.Ed. Course. Misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, is then disclosed in detail.

It is stated that the petitioner had mentioned in her admission form submitted to the University that she has passed the Graduation (B.A.) by securing 184 marks out of 400 i.e. 46%. On perusal of her detailed Marks Certificate of B.A. Part I, II and III, it is noticed that she had only obtained 34% overall marks in B.A. It is also pointed out that the marks in the subsidiary subjects can not be counted for percentage of marks as confirmed by the Delhi University. In this regard, reference is made to Annexure P-9, which reveals that the candidate, who has cleared his subsidiary subjects but failed to secure 40% marks in main paper then as per the rules, a candidate who passed the subsidiary subject and has failed in the Main Subject, but has secured in the latter not less than 33% marks in aggregate (Part-I, Part-II & Part-III combined), she would be eligible for B.A. (Pass) Degree by counting the aggregate marks in Part I, II and III. Relevant extract of Annexure P-9 is as under:-

In this connection, I am to inform you that the above candidate has cleared her subsidiary subjects but failed to secure 40% marks in Main Papers. As per rules a candidate who passed the subsidiary subject and has failed in the Main Subject, but has secured in the latter not less than 33% marks in aggregate (Part-I, Part-II & Part-III combined) shall be granted a B.A. (Pass) Degree without division. The marks of subsidiary subject cannot be counted for percentage of marks. However, a copy of the relevant rule is enclosed for your ready reference.

It is on this basis, the respondent-University has viewed that the petitioner was not eligible for grant of admission in B.Ed. course. It is misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in hiding the fact, which is led to grant of admission to the petitioner after she was initially permitted to appear in the entrance test.

Counsel for the petitioner has been rather vehement in submitting that once the petitioner has been permitted to appear in the examination, she now cannot be put to prejudice. In fact the counsel would plead that the aspect of eligibility may also have to be ignored at this stage. In support, the counsel has raised reliance on Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, . The Hon''ble Supreme Court in this case, has held that 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. In my view, this observation may not help the case of the petitioner. Here the university has detected the aspect of eligibility of the petitioner much before she was to appear in the examination. The University is justified in taking the stand that entrance examination was not conducted by them and even if her eligibility was ignored by respondent/Punjabi University, it would not bind the respondent/University and it could check her eligibility. In my view, the University has taken proper precautions to obtain the view of the Delhi University as well while checking the eligibility on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in the Graduation. It is clarified by the Delhi University in its communication, Annexure P-9, reproduced above that the calculation of percentage of marks is to be done on the aggregate of marks obtained in B.A. Part I, II and III. If the calculation is done in this manner, the petitioner admittedly had obtained 34% marks in Graduation. The eligibility for appearing in the examination is 45% marks. Merely because, the University permitted the petitioner to provisionally appear in the examination, can not mean that her eligibility is to be ignored. A question of eligibility would go to root and may dislodge the petitioner. If a person is able to somehow mislead or misrepresent in regard to eligibility then he or she cannot plead equity in his/her favour on the ground that he or she has been permitted to appear in examination.

Reference can be made to the case of Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. v. Gis Jose & Ors 2009 (1) RSJ 438 referred to by the counsel for the University. This was a case, where the result was withhold after granting admission after the examination. The admission was found to be in violation of admission rules framed by the University. The respondent, in this case, lacked basic qualification for admission to the course by the University regulation. It was the Principal of College, who had allowed the respondent to continue to studies and to write the examination. Finding this to be totally illegal, Hon''ble Supreme Court held that sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of rules. The order passed for declaring the result of respondent was, accordingly, set aside. In view of what has been noticed above, in my view, no case is made out to show any misplaced sympathy to the petitioner.

The petitioner being ineligible would have no right to seek declaration of result or to seek quashing of order cancelling her candidature as ordered by the University. There is no arbitrariness or illegality seen in the order.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.