ivil Appeal No 183 of 1989
232 From the Judgment and Order dated 4588 of the Rajas than High Court in Writ Petition No 521 of 1988
Sushil Kr
Jain for the Appellant
CM Lodha and RB Mehrotra for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
Special leave is granted
Heard learned Counsel for both parties
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering of the Jodhpur Universi ty putting in abeyance the admission of the appellant in the B E
Degree Course till further orders
The appellant is a diploma holder and is serving in the 1 NM Engineering College Faculty of Engineering Jodhpur since 1976 as an AdministratorInstructor
In may 1987 the appellant submitted an application to the Study Leave Com mittee of the University of Jodhpur for study leave for three years enabling the appellant to prosecute his studies in the BE Degree Course
On August 3 1987 the Study Leave Committee recommended the case of the appellant for the grant of study leave and on August 14 1987 the Syndi cate of the University accepted the said recommendation and granted study leave to the appellant for a period of three years with full pay
Pursuant to the leave granted to the appellant he made an application on November 14 1987 for admission in the B E
Degree Course
At this stage it will be pertinent to refer to a reso lution dated September 21 1970 passed by the Faculty of Engineering recommending that the teachers of the University should be granted leave so as to enable them to join the BE Degree Course as a regular candidate on a full time basis
The said resolution was accepted by the Academic Council of the University on March 25 1970 and the Syndi cate in its turn approved the resolution of the Academic Council
According to the appellant the above resolution of the Syndicate was acted upon and as a matter of fact certain teachers of the University were admitted to BE Degree Course
In his application dated November 14 1987 the appellant specifically mentioned the 233 names of seven teacher candidates who had been admitted to the various Departments of the Engineering College in pursu ance of the above resolution of the Syndicate and the policy of the University
The case of the appellant is that it is the practice of the University to give admissions to teach ers by creating extra seats in addition to general seats
The appellant made the application for admission after he had been communicated with the resolution of the Syndi cate granting leave on the recommendation of the Study Leave Committee
Admittedly the application was made on November 14 1987 after the last date for admission in the general seats had expired
Accordingly to the appellant he was communicated with the decision of the Syndicate granting study leave to him on October 29 1987 and soon thereafter he made the application for admission
It is the case of the appellant that in view of the practice of the University as the teachers who are granted study leave are admitted by the creation of extra seats the question of making applications after the last date for admission in the general seats is irrelevant
Be that as it may the application of the appellant was forwarded by the Professor and Head of the Mechanical and Engineering Department and the Dean Faculty of Engineering to the Vice Chancellor
The Vice Chancellor referred the application back to the Dean observing that the Dean was competent to make admissions
Certain objections were raised by the Officer in Charge Admissions including the objec tion that the appellant had obtained less than 60 per cent marks in the Diploma Examination passed by him
The Dean considered the said objections and recommended the case of the appellant for admission to the Vice Chancellor with the following observation However there is another aspect of this case which deserves consideration
The University has in the past allowed the teacher candi dates of this faculty securing less than 60 per cent marks in their Diploma Examinations admission to BE Course
This was perhaps to encourage the Faculty Staff to improve their qualifications so that they serve the faculty in a better capacity
With these precedents in view Shri AC Singhvi Instructor may be admitted to BE Degree course as a very special case
 234 The Vice Chancellor after considering the facts of the case accepted the recommendation made by the Dean
Thereaf ter on January 16 1988 the order for admission of the appellant was issued by the Dean Faculty of Engineering admitting the appellant in BE Second Year Engineering Course
Pursuant to the said order the appellant deposited the requisite fees on the same date and joined the classes from January 16 1988
The appellant was however communi cated on February 9 1988 with an order dated January 20 1988 of the Dean directing that the appellant s admission was put in abeyance until further orders
Being aggrieved by the said order dated January 20 1988 of the Dean the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and as stated already the High Court dismissed the writ petition
Hence this appeal
The first objection that was raised to the admission of the appellant was that the appellant had not secured 60 per cent of marks which was the minimum requirement for admis sion
Indeed the appellant also stated that he had obtained only 5972 per cent of marks in his Diploma Examination
It appears that both the University and the appellant proceeded on the assumption that the appellant had secured in the Diploma Examination less than 60 per cent of marks
It is the case of the appellant that though for teacher candidates it was not necessary to secure 60 per cent of marks in the Diploma Course yet according to the computation mentioned in the Admission Circular the appellant had secured 60 per cent of marks
The Admission Circular provides as follows It is further provided that no such candidate who has secured less than 60 marks in the aggregate in the diploma examination shall be eligible for admission to this programme and the admission will be made strictly on the basis of merit determined by taking the per centage of marks obtained at the three diploma examinations passed as follows I Year 40 per cent of marks
II Year 60 per cent of marks
III Year 100 per cent of marks
235 The candidates must submit along with their application true copies of marks sheets of all the three diploma examinations
 The appellant secured 2154 as per 40 per cent weight age 3627 as per 60 per cent weightage and 6518 as per 100 per cent weightage
The total comes to 12299 out of 200
As per the admission rules this works out to about 615 per cent
Thus it appears that the appellant had secured more than 60 per cent of marks in the aggregate in the Diploma Examination and was not disqualified for admis sion in that regard
The next question is whether the appellant should have been admitted after the last date
We have referred to the resolution of the Academic Council and the Syndicate with regard to the admission of teacher candidates
It is howev er the case of the University that the said resolution has no effect whatsoever and admissions are governed by the statutes of the University
There is much controversy wheth er in the past the teacher candidates were admitted in extra seats created over and above the general seats
The appel lant has referred to certain cases where the teacher candi dates were admitted in additional seats created by the University with a view to giving the teachers an opportunity to acquire higher knowledge which may be used in he inter est of the institution and which may raise the standard of teaching
It may be that the previous policy of the University is not in force and the admissions are governed strictly by the statutes or the admission rules framed thereunder
In the objections raised by the Officer in Charge Admissions it was specifically pointed out that the seats were limited and all admissions were made strictly on the basis of merit list drawn amongst all eligible candidates and that no preferen tial treatment could be given to anyone including employees of the University non teachingteaching in any discipline in any Faculty
In spite of that objection the Dean recom mended for the admission of the appellant
The Vice Chancel lor also considered the office note but approved the recom mendation of the Dean
In consequence of such approval by the Vice Chancellor the appellant was admitted
It is urged by Mr Mehrotra learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the appellant could not be admitted and his admission was illegal
There may be some force in the contention of the learned Counsel but when all facts were before the Uni 236 versity and nothing was suppressed by the appellant would it be proper to penalise the appellant for no fault of his The admission of the appellant was not made through inad vertence or mistake but after considering even all objec tions to the same as raised by the said Officer in Charge Admissions in his note
The appellant was communicated with the decision of the Dean as approved by the ViceChancellor admitting him to the Second Year B E Course
The appellant deposited the requisite fees and started attending classes when he was told that his admission was directed to be put in abeyance until further orders without disclosing to him any reason whatsoever
It is curious that although the admission to the BE Degree Course of the University is governed by statutes of the University and admission rules the said resolution of the Syndicate dated December 13 1970 has also been kept alive
Neither the Dean nor the ViceChancellor was where of the true position namely as to whether the said resolution had become infructuous in view of the statutes and the admission rules
A teacher candidate is likely to be misled by the said resolution
It is the duty of the University to see that its statutes rules and resolutions are clear and unambiguous and do not mislead bona fide candidates
The University should have revoked the said resolution in order to obviate any ambiguity in the matter of admission or included the same in the statutes as part of the admission rules
When the appellant made the application beyond the last date his application should not have been entertained
But the application was entertained presumably on the basis of the said resolution of the Syndicate
The appellant also brought to the notice of the Dean the said resolution and also the implementation of the same by admitting seven teacher candidates
It is submitted on behalf of the University that it was through mistake that the appellant was admitted
We are unable to accept the contention
It has been already noticed that both the Dean and the Vice Chancellor considered the objections raised by the Officer inCharge Admissions and thereafter direction for admitting the appellant was made
When after considering all facts and circumstances and also the objections by the office to the admission of a candi date the Vice Chancellor directs the admission of such a candidate such admission could not be said to have been made through mistake
Assuming that the appellant was admit ted through mistake the appellant not being at fault it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission of the appellant
In this connection we may refer to a deci sion of 237 this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs Karnataka University and another  In that case the appel lants were admitted to certain private engineering colleges for the BE Degree Course although they were not eligible for admission
In that case this Court dismissed the ap peals preferred by the students whose admissions were subse quently cancelled and the order of cancellation was upheld by the High Court
At the same time this Court took the view that the fault lay with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants and that there was no reason why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the management of these engineering colleges
Accordingly this Court allowed the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission
The same principle which weighed with this Court in that case should also be applied in the instant case
The appel lant was not at fault and we do not see why he should suffer for the mistake committed by the Vice Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering
In the circumstances we set aside the judgment of the High Court and also the impugned order dated January 20 1988 of the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and direct that the admission of the appellant will continue
The appeal is allowed
There will however be no order as to costs
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
On April 5 1988 an order of detention was passed against the petitioner in the writ petition under section 32 of the 
He could not be served with this order and taken into preventive custody as he was abscond ing
He was treated as an absconder and resort was had to section 72 of the Act
A proclamation was obtained against him under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 and was executed on May 5 1988
He surrendered thereafter in Court on July 4 1988 and was sent to the District Jail where he was served the detention order and the grounds of detention on July 5 1988
In the grounds of detention three incidents were enumer ated indicating that the petitioner had acted in a manner which was against the maintenance of public law and order situation
The incidents were 1 On July 8 1987 the petitioner had gone along with his associates and threatened the contractor of a mango garden that fees for goondagardi Chauth should be paid to him and assaulted the contractor
The matter was reported to the police who registered a case under Sections 301 and 323 IPC 2 On February 11 1988 the petitioner threatened a shopkeeper that he should pay Rs 10000 immediately falling which he would killed
The shopkeeper reported the matter to the police who had 258 registered a case under section 506 IPC 3 On March 3 1988 the petitioner taking a Revolver in his hand moved in the market area and threatened the shop keepers if they do not pay Chauth  they could not open their shops
On account of this threat the entire market was closed
The grounds of detention also informed the petitioner that he could make a representation under section 3 of the Act and that the matter would be submitted under section 10 to the Advisory Board and that he could make any representation for the consideration of the Board
The meeting of the Advisory Board was fixed on August 2 1988
The Board considered the written and oral representa tions of the petitioner and gave a report that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner
The State Government accepted the report of the Advisory Board and passed a further order on August 1718 1988 confirming the detention of the petitioner
In the writ petition to this Court the detention order was assailed on the following grounds 1 The three grounds set out in the grounds of deten tion are not incidents which would affect the maintenance of public order or the even tempo of the life of the community
2 the third incident has been concocted in order to give credibility to the detention order
3 The petitioner was denied the opportunity to have the assistance of a friend when he appeared before the Advisory Board and 4 That the Central Government had not considered the petitioner s case when the State Government sent a report under section 35 of the Act and the nonapplication of mind by the Central Government vitiates the detention of the petitioner
Dismissing the writ petition HELD 1 a The demand for chauth from the contractor and the attack launched on him would show that it was not a case of singling out a particular contractor for payment of chauth but a demand expected to be complied with by all owners or contractors of mango groves in the locality
In such circumstances the demand made and the attack launched would undoubtedly cause fear and panic in the minds of all the owners and contractors of mango groves in that area and this would have affected the even tempo of life of the community
265E F 259 lb The incident in the second ground must also be viewed in the same manner in which the first incident has been construed as indicated above
It is not as if the demand and the threat following it were made against Ashok Kumar in an isolated manner
On the other hand the demand had been made as part of a scheme to extort money from all the shopkeepers under a threat that their continuance of business and even their lives would be in danger if chauth was not paid
This demand would have certainly made all the shopkeepers in that locality feel apprehensive that they too would be forced to make payments to the petitioner
and that otherwise they would not be allowed to run their shops
265G H 266A B lc In so far as the incident in the third ground is concerned the petitioner is stated to have taken a revolver with him and threatened all the shopkeepers in the market that if anyone failed to pay chauth  he would not be al lowed to open his shop and he would have to face the conse quences
This incident cannot be considered as merely caus ing disturbance to the law and order situation but must be viewed as affecting the even tempo of life in the market
266B D ld Whether an act relates to law and order or to public order depends upon the impact of the act on the life of the community
In other words if the reach and effect and potentiality of the act disturb or dislocate the even tempo of the life of the community it will be an act which will affect public order
266E G In the instant case it cannot be said that the demands made and threats given by the petitioner to the contractors and shopkeepers as mentioned in the three grounds would have its reach only to the limited extent of affecting the law and order situation and not go so far as to affect the maintenance of public order
267E Dr Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar   Arun Ghosh vs State of West Bengal  Nagendra Nath Mondal vs State of West Bengal   Nandial Roy vs State of West Bengal referred to and Gulab Mehra vs State of UP 1987 IV SCC 302 distinguished
It is not possible to accept the contention that third incident referred to in the grounds of detention is a concocted altair
The records go to show that HC Khajan Singh had promptly reported the incident at the police station and the truth of his report had been verified by Inspector RC Verma
267H 268A 260 State of UP vs Kamal Kishore Saini  at 213 referred to
Though the Advisory Board had permitted the detenu to appear along with a friend the detenu had failed to take a friend with him
He did not also represent to the Advisory Board that he did not have adequate time to get the services of a friend and that he required time to have the services of a friend
Such being the case he cannot take advantage of his own lapses and raise a contention that the detention order is illegal because he was not represented by a friend at the meeting of the Advisory Board
He did not also choose to represent to the Advisory Board that he was not given sufficient time to secure the service of a friend
271C D 272B 4a The Central Government had in fact considered the report sent by the State Government under section 35 of the Act and saw no reason to revoke the detention order in exercise of its powers under section 14
272D 4b The petitioner was absconding and proclamations were made under sections 82 and 83 Cr
PC and it was only thereafter the petitioner had surrendered himself in Court
The challenge to the detention order on ground of delay in arrest is not sustainable
This is not a case where the petitioner was freely moving about but no arrest was effect ed because his being at large was not considered a hazard to the maintenance of public order
272F