Vijay Kumar vs State and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—At request, instant petition was finally heard while considering application dt. 26/03/09 Under Article 226(3) of Constitution seeking vacation of interim orders dt.16/01/09 whereby petitioner has been allowed to appear in remaining papers of B. Tech (2nd Yr) (Electronics & Communication Engg) Course provisionally subject to decision of this petition; and so also order dt.16/03/09 directing respondents to allow petitioner to attend Classes of 4th Semester B.Tech (Elec. & Comm. Engg.) on provisional basis.

Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that criteria adopted by respondents for admission of Diploma/B.Sc. Degree holders to 2nd year B.E./B.Tech/B.Pharma course pursuant to advertisement (Ann.2) issued by Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan (respondent No. 2) is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

Petitioner is a degree holder having qualified B.Sc. (Hons.) examination, 2006 held in May, 2007 as per mark sheet (Ann.1) issued by Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. Respondent-Board of Technical Education issued advertisement (Ann.2) in regard to Centralised Admission of Diploma/B.Sc. Holders through Lateral Entry in Engineering & Pharmacy (LEEP-2008); and invited applications from candidates having passed Diploma in Engineering/ Pharmacy or B.Sc. (with Maths as a subject) for direct lateral admission to II-B.E./II-B.Pharma in various Engineering/Pharmacy Colleges of Rajasthan State.

As per advertisement (Ann.2) issued under relevant Regulations, B.Sc. degree holders (with Maths as a subject) were eligible to seek lateral entry admission to 2nd Year B.E./B.Pharma Course in various Engineering/Pharmacy Colleges of Rajasthan State - pursuant to which, petitioner claiming himself as eligible submitted his application (Ann.5) for LEEP-2008 and as per OMR sheet, he sought admission for B.Tech. (Electronics & Communications) but his form was rejected as is evident from Ann.6.

It is strange that petitioner has not assailed letter of rejection (Ann.6) of his application form (Ann.5) LEEP-2008 submitted pursuant to advertisement (Ann.2); but at the same time raised his grievance that respondents adopted different standards while making admission to 2nd year B.E./B.Tech course and action of respondents is arbitrary.

However, petitioner has placed on record provisional registration receipt dt.12/08/08 (Ann.4) for an amount of Rs. 11,000/- deposited with Kautilya Institute of Technology & Engineering & School of Management (KITE-SOM) (respondent No. 3), as per which Rs. 10,000/- was charged for Tuition fee and Rs. 1,000/- for Form fee for registration for B.E. (2nd Year) (Branch- ECE); on the basis whereof, it was alleged that petitioner took admission provisionally in the respondent-Institution and when he was not permitted to appear in examination, at that stage, he approached this Court by way of instant petition and vide order dt.16/01/09, respondents were directed to permit him to appear in B.Tech (2nd Yr)(Elec. & Commun. Engg.) - in pursuance whereof, he must have appeared therein, therefore, filed misc. application that despite interim order, he was not being permitted to pursue studies in 4th Semester of B.Tech course; on which vide order dt.16/03/09, respondent Institution was directed to permit him; at this stage, reply was filed by respondent No. 3, and application seeking vacation of interim orders was filed, wherein it has been averred that centralised admissions are made of B.Sc. Degree holders to 2nd year B.E/B.Tech course through LEEP-2008 by respondent-Board of Technical Education on the basis of academic record in order of preference; but petitioner''s application form of LEEP-2008 pursuant to advertisement (Ann.2) was rejected vide Ann.6; and that apart, no technical institution like respondent No. 3 could grant admission without name of applicant being sponsored by Co-ordinator-Board (respondent No. 2). It has also been averred that a list of seven candidates was sent by the respondent Board of Technical Education for admission in II year B.E./B.Tech., through lateral entry, who were admitted in II-year B.E/B.Tech (Electronics & Communication Engg.) in respondent-Institution; however name of petitioner was never sponsored by the Board of Technical Education which alone holds competence for admission to Technical Institutions. It has also been averred that Ann.4 is only a provisional registration receipt given to petitioner, which was always subject to confirmation as per RPETAP/RMAT-2008 guidelines. It has also been averred in para 3 of the reply by respondent Institution that petitioner did Under-Graduation (B.Sc.) from outside Rajasthan viz. Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur; as such was not entitled to seek admission through LEEP-2008.

Counsel for respondents submit that petitioner was never admitted in 2nd Year B.Tech. (Elec. & Commm Engg.) course - in the absence whereof, he could not be permitted to appear in the examination, which has rightly been denied to him.

I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Notice (Ann.2) was advertised for centralised admission of Diploma/B.Sc. holders to II-B.E./B.Pharma through lateral entry in Engineering & Pharmacy (LEEP-2008), pursuant to which, petitioner claiming himself eligible as per mark sheet (Ann.1) of his B.Sc. (Hons) submitted application form. Since admissions were to be made in order of preference based on academic merit as referred to in the Notice (Ann.2) but his application was rejected as is evident from Ann.6, against which no grievance was raised by him.

However, petitioner straight away deposited a sum of Rs. 11,000/- which was accepted by respondent Institution towards Tuition fee & form fee, as is evident from provisional registration receipt dt.12/08/08(Ann.4) for his alleged admission in II-B.E (Electronics & Communication Engineering).

Indisputably, petitioner is degree holder of B.Sc. (Hons) (with a subject of Mathematics) conducted by Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur as is evident from his mark sheet (Ann.1) obviously from outside Rajasthan but appears to be eligible for admission.

But the fact is that petitioner was never admitted in II-B.E. pursuant to advertisement (Ann.2) which pertained to Centralised Admission to Lateral Entry in Engineering & Pharmacy (LEEP- 2008). As per Scheme having been brought to the notice of this Court, centralised admissions are made by respondent-Board through LEEP-2008 for direct lateral admissions to II-B.E./II-B.Pharma, in respective 15 Engineering/Pharmacy Colleges of Rajasthan State including respondent-Technical Institution; and no technical institutions can make admissions of Diploma/B.Sc., holders of its own.

As regards petitioner, his name was never sponsored by Co-ordinator, LEEP-2008 Board of Technical Education (respondent No. 2) for his admission through lateral entry in 2nd year B.E./B.Tech. (Electronics & Communication Engg.) course - in absence whereof, there was no admission of petitioner to any technical institution and if petitioner was not admitted by respondent-Board of Technical Education, who alone holds competence to grant admission under Centralised Admission Scheme for direct lateral admissions to II-B.E./II-B.Pharma pursuant to advertisement (Ann.2), respondent No. 3 Technical Institution was otherwise not competent to grant admission to petitioner at its own and if the petitioner was not admitted to II-B.E./B.Tech. Course through lateral entry pursuant to advertisement (Ann.2) pertaining to LEEP-2008, respondent No. 4-University was justified in not permitting the petitioner from appearing in the examination whereof.

According to respondent Institution, receipt (Ann.4) was of provisional registration being subject to confirmation as per guidelines of the Board of Technical Education, which confers no right upon petitioner for admission through lateral entry., particularly when his form was rejected vide Ann.6.

Ofcourse provisional registration receipt (Ann.4) will not confer any right upon petitioner unless admitted to 2nd year B.E./ B.Tech (Elec. & Comm. Engg.) course through lateral entry but indisputably, as per para 3 of reply, the case set up by respondent Institution is that petitioner acquired B.Sc. Degree from outside Rajasthan; as such was not eligible to seek admission through LEEP-2008.

Be that as it may, petitioner might be at fault in not taking appropriate steps if his name was not sponsored by respondent No. 2-Co-ordinator -Board who alone holds its competence under Centralised Admission Scheme of the Board in making admission through LEEP-2008, but at the same time, respondent Institution in no manner could be held to be justified in accepting a sum of Rs. 11,000/- towards tuition fee & form fee vide cash receipt dt.12/08/08 (Ann.4) and issuing provisional registration to him. It appears that petitioner remained under bonafide belief that provisional registration may be sufficient for his admission to the course in question and when he was not permitted to appear in the examination at this stage, he approached this Court.

From material on record, this Court can certainly infer that by accepting a sum of Rs. 11,000/- through cash receipt for tuition fee petitioner was misguided by respondent Institution, for which there was no justification to accept money and issue receipt under the guise of provisional registration receipt knowing it well that the admission can be made only by Technical Board alone.

Certainly the facts remains that if petitioner was not admitted as per procedure provided, atleast this Court will not recognise such back door entry being made by institution granting admission dehors the procedure provided under University Regulations.

However, the petitioner is entitled to refund of amount duly accepted by respondent No. 3 through registration receipt (Ann.4), alongwith interest and at the same time can take appropriate action claiming damages by availing of remedy under law.

Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, respondent-Institution is directed to refund amount of Rs. 11,000/- duly accepted vide receipt (Ann.4) alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of receipt (12/08/08) till actual payment whereof within one month from today; and petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate action against respondent No. 3 Institution for the loss which he has suffered, if so desired/advised by way of remedy available under law. No costs.