Tejasvi College of Education vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.C. Srivastava, Sri Krishna Chandra for the State and Sri Waseeq Uddin Ahmad for the University. Chancellor is represented by Sri D.K. Upadhyaya.

With the consent of the parties'' counsel, we dispose of the writ petition finally.

This writ petition seeks a mandamus directing the opposite parties to conduct the examination of 46 students of the petitioner institution for academic session 2007-08, which is scheduled to be held on 10.8.2010.

Prior to the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing number 3319 (MB) of 2009, wherein same controversy regarding the permission being granted to the students admitted by the institution for pursuing their B. Ed. course for the academic session 2007-08, was considered. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 2.4.09, wherein it was provided that such students who were found eligible and those who have completed the required number of days of studies, shall be allowed to appear in the examination.

Sri Waseeq Uddin Ahmad appearing for the University, says that after passing of the aforesaid order, though the petitioner institution did not submit forms and did not give the required information, yet it moved a contempt application bearing contempt No. 552 of 2010 before this Court, wherein Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University were summoned.

The Contempt Court found that in view of the Judgment in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 3319 (MB) of 2009, which allowed only those students to appear in the examination who fulfil all the requirements, the grievance raised in the contempt application was not genuine, discharged the contempt notices.

It appears that the University has taken a decision that examination of all those students who were entitled to appear in the examination for academic session 2007-08 of various institutions affiliated to the said University and in whose favour orders were passed by the High Court or even otherwise, who were eligible for the purpose, be held along with the examination of academic session 2008-09, which is scheduled from 10.8.2010.

It is the specific case of the University that the University has not debarred any institution from sending the names of the students or submitting examination forms, but while permitting them to appear in the examination their eligibility has to be determined for which necessary information has been asked for, from all the institutions.

The grievance of the petitioner that the examination forms of 46 students are not being accepted by the University, is being specifically and categorically denied by the learned Counsel for the University. He says that till 19th July, 2010, examination form of any student was not furnished to the University but on 19.7.2010, forms of 46 students have been submitted, out of which 13 students who were admitted through counseling conducted by the University, have already been allowed to appear in the examination.

The dispute thus, relates only to 33 students, who have been admitted by the institution directly.

The petitioner relies upon the Government order dated 12.8.08, which gives power to the institution to make admissions on its own from the list prepared by the University under Common Admission Test, where the names of such students find mention.

Sri Waseeq Uddin Ahmad further clarifies that, in fact, the University has not opposed the appearance of any student who has been legally admitted, in the aforesaid course but it had only required the petitioner institution to furnish the details about the admissions made and whether the students who have been admitted, fell in the eligibility criteria for being admitted, and also whether they have completed their studies for required number of days. The institution has not yet given any reply.

However, Sri S.C. Srivastava says that the institution has furnished its reply.

The order passed in Writ Petition No. 3319 (MB) of 2009 clearly says that only those students who are found eligible and who fulfil all the requirements, would be allowed to appear in the examinations. It was thus, the legal obligation of the institution (petitioner institution) to furnish the details and relevant information, on being asked by the University.

We do not have any reason to believe that if examination forms of all eligible students had been furnished to the University earlier, the students would not have been allowed to appear in the examinations, in view of the orders passed in the earlier writ petition, that too after facing contempt notices, though they were subsequently discharged.

The conduct of the petitioner in coming to the Court and not furnishing the relevant information to the University, cannot be appreciated.

A chart has been annexed by the petitioners showing the percentage of marks, of the students who have been admitted by the institution directly, in their qualifying examination. There are students who have secured 37% marks and 42% marks.

Sri Waseeq Uddin Ahmad says that for being eligible to be included in the select list under the Common Admission Test conducted by the University, a student had to secure 45% marks, which has now been increased to 50%.

This requires an enquiry by the University about the eligibility of the students to appear in the examinations and if the University has asked for certain information in this regard, it was incumbent upon the Management of the institution to provide the same.

We, therefore, keeping in mind that the examinations are scheduled to take place from 10.8.2010, direct that the petitioner institution shall furnish necessary information, which has been asked for, by the University by 3rd August, 2010 and on receipt of the said information, the University shall allow all those students to appear in the examination, who are found eligible and who fulfil all the criteria, namely, their names find place in the list of the University prepared as a result of the Common Admission Test and who have completed the required days of studies, subject to other conditions, if any, being fulfilled.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.