^ r-^^tf '^ ^ BC^^ LsLfc; E IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl N0. ^J2^_ / 2011 PETITIONERS ^ '}^>" / ".w / ^y^ fh ..W .A'' ^/.^' A' •''^ ^' ^0.^y / 1. Kirti Jhunjhunwala, D/o. Shri Santosh Ku. Jhunjhunwala, Aged about 21, R/o 352, 5th Floor, Parthivi Pacific, G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Mandeep Bhatia S/o. Shri Surjeet Singh Bhatia, Aged about 23 years, R/o Hotel K.S. Bhatia, Main Road, Barbil Keonjhar, Orissa. 3. Khushbhu Sharma, D/o. Pawan Ku. Sharma, Aged about 22 years, R/o Sharma Medical Store, Ambikapur Road, Pathalgaon, (C.G.) '^si-- ^ashp^ C^ ^- ^— ^ 4.Chandani Sahu, D/o. Indrajeet Songerwa, Aged about 22 years, R/o Village - Khambariya, District Dhamtari, (C.G.) ^ 5. Nilima Sahu D/o. Late Tularam Sahu, aged about 21 years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 1, Behind Tiwari Hospital, Mahasamund (C.G.) 6. Priyanka Dey D/o. Shri Kajal Chandra Dey, Aged about 22 years, R/o Gudhiyari, Naya Talab, near Uma Dairy, Raipur, (C.G.). 7. Arpit Khemka, S/o. Anup Khemka, Aged about 22 years, R/o Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) 8. Shashikant Gupta, S/o. Shri Krishnamurari Gupta, aged about 18 years, R/o Village Rajivnagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) ^' 9. Mahendra Verma. S/o. Thoklal Verma, Aged about 24 years, R/o Village - Badgaon, Mandir Hasaud, District - Raipur (C.G.) y/ L ^^- ^/.-. { M^'r? ^;.. -^/.^ ^ 10. Bhawna Suryavanshi D/o. Shri Rajendra Suryavanshi, Aged about 22 years, R/o Pitambar Shing Kangali, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 11. Priyanka Chandak, D/o. Late Shri Chandraprakash Chandak Aged about 21 years, R/o Gudhiyari Raipur (C.G.). 12. Mayank Mishra S/o Shri M.K. Mishra , aged about 22 years, R/o Devpuri, Raipur, C.G. 13. Jitendra Sanotra S/o Shri Amarjeet Singh Sanotra, Aged about24 years, R/o ShantiNagar, Raipur, C.G. 14. Antaryami Samal S/o Manglu Samal, Aged about 23 years, R/o Baloda Bazar, Raipur, C.G. 15. Bhupendra Singh Thakur, S/o Shri Thakur Singh, Aged about 27 years, R/o Bhatapara, Raipur, C.G. 16. Bhuneshwar Bais S/o Bishat Bais, Aged about 21 years, R/o Amodhi, Raipur, C.G. 17. Vishwas Soni S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Soni, Aged about 28 years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Baloda Bazar, Raipur, C.G. 18. Mukesh Ku. Pradhan S/o Yudumani Pradhan, Aged about 23 years, R/o Gyanodaya Vidyamandir, near Pumphoni ^ , „ p Bajrang Chowk, Mathpara, C.G. P/^^o/>^ c .^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: - Department of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Director of Technical Education, Raipur, Govt. Girl's Polytechnic campus, Byron Bazar, Raipur C.G^ «w' 5 3. 4. (&/ Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai - Through its Registrar, North Park Avenue, Sector - 8, Bhilai, C.G. Raipur Institute of Technology, Raipur C.G. - Through Principal WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDtAT ..L ^ jl ^ "'^ ^ ^F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (^ WRIT PETITION fC) No. 6922 of 2011 PETITIONERS Kirti Jhunjhunwala & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ^ Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on .. /. .day ofDecember, 2011^ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC) No. 6922 of2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Kirti Jhunjhunwala & Others. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. (Delivered on ..1.. day ofDecember, 2011) By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent- University to enroll the petitioners in MBA course for the academic session 2011-12, further, quash the memo dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure P/l) issued by the respondent No. 3 and to declare that the cut offdate fixed by the respondent as 20.09.201 1, to be illegal and contrary to the ordinance No. 4 ofthe University. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners appeared in Management Aptitude Test (for short ithe MAT)) conducted by AIMA authorised by All India Council for Technical Education (for short (AICTE)\ The petitioners were granted provisional admission by the respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/2). The respondent No. 2/Director, Technical Education, had fixed the eligibility criteria for admission to MBA course vide letter dated 29.12.2010 (Annexure P/3). The petitioners appeared in MAT examination held on 04.09.2011. The MAT examination 3. is usually conducted four times in a year in the month ofFebruary, May, September and December. The minimum qualification prescribed for appearing in MAT is graduation in any discipline from any recognized University or equivalent degree. A final year student ofgraduation can also appear provisionally. The petitioners were given provisional admission on the basis oftheir participation in MAT examination, subject to their clearing the MAT examination. However, the result of MAT examination was declared on 25.09.2011 afiter which the petitioners submitted their score cards. The admission process was monitored by the respondent-University. The respondent-College i.e. Raipur Institute of Technology (for short tthe RIT)) sent the list of the students alongwith the score cards which was orally refused to be accepted, as the same was submitted on 01.10.2011. As per the ordinance No. 4 of the respondent-University, the last date of submission of application form for enrollment was 30.09.2011 but the respondent No. 2, Department of Technical Education, fixed thesameas 20.09.2011. Shri Dangi, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it has been a practice as in the year 2009 and 2010 also, that the cut off date for admission was duly extended on the representation made by various associations and colleges so that the students who appeared in MAT in the month of September, may also take part in admission process. Shri Dangi would fiirther submit that in this year, the cut off date as per the Ordinance No. 4 and the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was 30th September. The result of the petitioners were declared on 25.09.2011 thus, there was no occasion for the petitioners to submit their score cards as per the requirement of the respondent No. 2. He would further contend that the respondent-University after receiving the list of the students sent by the respondent-RIT on 01.10.2011, kept the matter in abeyance till they received the letter of the respondent No. 2, dated 14.10.2011 according to which the last date for admission to MBA course was 20.09.2011. On the same date, i.e. 14.10.2011 (Annexure P/9) the respondent- University sent the list of students to the respondent-RIT rejecting the application for enrollment to MBA 1st Semester for the session 2011-12. Shri Dangi would further submit that the respondent-University has extended the date for submission ofenrollment forms for B.E., B.E. (Pharmacy), lateral entry and D.Pharmacy courses and the cut offdate for Diploma Engineering courses running in naxal affected areas and inter-University transfer cases has also been extended to 15.10.2011 (Annexure P/ll). Thus, not extending the cut offdate for the MBA course, is arbitrary and discriminatory because of which the petitioners will have to lose a whole academic year causing irreparable loss to the petitioners. On the other hand, Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent-University would concur with the submission of Shri Dangi in respect of holding of MAT, however, Shri Shrivastava would submit that the petitioners wrongly appeared in the month of September, 2011 for qualifying MAT examination. The MAT examination score card remains valid for one year and mere acquisition of eligibility does not confer any 6. 7. right upon the candidate to claim admission in the very same academic session. The process of admission to various technical and other courses are regulated by the Govemment, upon which the respondent-University has no control. The respondent- University is only a body for enrolling the students, who have been granted admission by the Govemment in a particular academic session. As per the letter issued by the respondent-University on 22.07.201, the last date for submission of enrollment forms was fixed as 23.08.2011 and for removal of any discrepancy, it was 07.09.2011. According to the contention of the petitioners themselves, examination was held on 04.09.2011 and the result of which was declared in the second week of September, 2011 by that time, the last date for submission of enrollment forms had already expired. According to the Ordinance No. 4 of the respondent- University, under clause (3) of Section 42 of the Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Act, 2005, the last date for submission of application for enrollment, complete in all respects, must be submitted on or before 30 September, of the academic year. It does not even appear that the petitioners were granted provisional admission by the respondent-RIT. Shri Shrivastava would further submit that the petition has become infructuous as the semester examinations have already commenced on 24.11.2011. This does not, in any way prejudice the petitioners. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The guidelines issued by the Registrar of the respondent- University (Annexure R/3-1) indicates that the last date for 1 submission of enrollment form was 23.08.2011 for MBA course and for removal ofthe discrepancies, it was 07.09.2011. However, on the website of the respondent-University (Annexure P/8), the last date for admission for MBA programme was shown as 20.09.2011. Indisputably, the requisite documents for admission to MBA course is 10th Marksheet, 12th Marksheet, Graduation Marksheet, MAT score card, Original Transfer Certificate, Character Certificate, Migration Certificate and Domicile Certificate, Medical Fitness Certificate from family physician, four recent passport size coloured photographs and Gap Certificate (if required). The MAT examination was held on 04.09.2011 and the result was declared on 25.09.2011. Thus, before the last date of admission either as per the website i.e. 20.09.2011 or as per the guidelines issued by the respondent-University Le. 23.08.2011, the petitioners were not eligible for admission to MBA course, for want ofMAT score card. It appears that on 01.08.2011 (Annexure P/2), the petitioners were admitted provisionally by the respondent-RIT without verifying asto whether the petitioners were in possession of the MAT score card and other required documents. Even if the admission was granted provisionally, the students seeking admission were required to produce all the necessary documents on or before 20.09.2011. But for want of MAT score card as the result of MAT examination was declared only on 25.09.2011, the same could not be done. Thus, grant of provisional admission by the respondent-RIT does not confer any right on the students/petitioners to seek admission to MBA course for the academic session 201 1-2012. Reliance of Shri Dangi on Ordinance No. 04 of the respondent- University to the effect that under the said ordinance, the admission is to be completed by 30 September ofthe academic year in which the students are to be admitted is baseless. Clause 4 ofthe Ordinance No. 04, reads as under: "4. The procedure for submission of applications for enrolment of students of applications for enrolment of students by colleges shall be as follows, viz i) All application forms from students shall, together with the necessary fees, migration certificate, if necessary, and retums on the prescribed forms reach the University Registrar by 30 September of the academic year in which the students are admitted. ii) Qn payment of a late fee of Rupees 50 the Kulapati may, for special reasons to be recorded, permit the enrolment of a student whose application form, enrolment fee or the migration certificate have been submitted after the due date and if the Kulapati is satisfied that the delay in submission is not due to any lack of diligence on the part of the student, he may sanction remission ofthe late fee. iii) In the case of all students who apply for enrolment the Principal ofthe college shall send to the University a general certificate to the effect that he has inspected the certificate issued by the appropriate authorities and satisfied himself that in each case the student concemed has passed the examination which under the rules of the University entitles him to join the course to which he has been admitted in the college." On bare perusal ofclause 4 ofthe Ordinance No. 04, it is clear that all the application forms from students with necessary fees, migration certificate, if necessary, shall reach to the University by 30 September ofthe academic year. However, the admission is to be completed before 20 September by the College after verification of the eligibility and all documents. Thereafter,the College shall submit applications for enrollment ofthe students to ^ the University, before 30th September ofthe academic year. Thus, the last date for submission of enrollment form by 30th September is not for the students, but for the College as in case of admission by the College, the cut offdate was 20th September, 2011. 10. The impugned order dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure P/l) clearly indicates that the petitioners have not enclosed MAT score card alongwith application form, which is a necessary requirement for admission to MBA course which is evident from communication ofthe Director, Technical Education dated 29.12.2010 (Annexure P/3). 11. The Supreme Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, held as under: "6. Looking to the clear terms ofthe advertisement which we have referred to above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is submitted by the respondent before us that since he has been continued and has now been confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has requested that his case should be considered sympathetically. The fact, however, remains that the appellants have taken the correct stand right from the beginning. The respondent's application was not considered and he was not called for an interview. It was on account of interim orders which were obtained by the respondent that he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to the outcome ofhis petition. One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent finds himself. A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of 1 (1997) 6 SCC 574 one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others." 12. In Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE & Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "1. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter ofsubmission ofproofand it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature." 13. The next contention of Shri Dangi that on earlier academic sessions, last date for admission to MBA course and in this academic year for other courses were extended, thus, the cut off date for MBA course also be extended, is unsustainable in law. The extension in other course and also earlier must have been done on several factors and that cannot be the criteria for extending the cut off date for admission to this course. It does not offend the provisions ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 14. The Supreme Court, in State ofBihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Others3, observed as under: ; (2005) 9 SCC 779 15. 16. '"\ "67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial fomm, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegaliry or for passing wrong order - Chandigarh Admn. V. Jagjit Singh, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, Union of India v. J,V.Subhaiah, Gurusharan singh v. NDMC, State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G.Health Services, Style (Dress Land) v. UT, Chandigarh, State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Union oflndia v. International Trading Co. and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ash^ain Jain" Applying the facts ofthe case to the well settled ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, no direction to extend the cut off date and further to enroll the petitioners who were not eligible on the last date of submission of the application form, may be granted. The impugned memo dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure P/l) is just, proper and does not warrant any interference. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit ' (2009) 5 SCC 65 ^r