CWP No.16889 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 19.04.2010 Amrita ... Petitioner Versus Panjab University, Chandigarh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for Mr.Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms.Smriti Dhir, Advocate, for respondent No.2. PERMOD KOHLI, J. In response to the Prospectus issued by respondent No.1- University for the session 2009-2010, for admission to various courses including Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications (hereinafter referred to as the PGDCA), the petitioner applied for admission to the PGDCA Course. Respondent No.2-College admitted the petitioner to the PGDCA Course. She claims to have deposited a sum of Rs.14,295/- on 17.07.2009 towards admission/ tuition fee and an amount of Rs.3660/- for availing hostel facilities. The petitioner was allowed Roll No.9732 /2009 and was also lodged in the Hostel-24, Chandigarh. It appears that when the papers of the petitioner were forwarded to respondent No.1-University, it was found that the petitioner was ineligible for admission to the course CWP No.16889 of 2009 2 having less than 50% marks in the qualifying examination i.e. B.A. on the basis of which the petitioner was admitted to PGDCA course. Accordingly, respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) communicated to respondent No.2 about the ineligibility of the petitioner in terms of Regulation 2 (i) printed at page 159 of P.U. Calendar, Volume- II, 2007. Respondent No.2 was accordingly advised to struck off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the College. Based upon the aforesaid communication, respondent No.2 issued letter dated 03.11.2009 (Annexure P-5) to the petitioner communicating her about the striking off her name from the college rolls on the instructions of the Panjab University. Both these communications are subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was admitted to the course without any misrepresentation on her part. It is further contended that the petitioner has been charged the fee for the course as also for the hostel facilities and she has attended the classes all along and now at this belated stage her name has been strucke off without affording any opportunity of being heard. Both the respondents have filed their separate replies. In the reply filed by the University, it is contended that the minimum eligibility under the University Calendar is 50% marks in aggregate as also in each subject in the qualifying examination is the criteria prescribed for admission to the PGDCA course whereas the petitioner has 40.50% marks (486 out of 1200). It is further stated that not only the petitioner has less than 50% marks in aggregate, but even in each subject she has secured less than 50% marks. The petitioner was, thus, totally CWP No.16889 of 2009 3 ineligible for seeking admission to PGDCA course. The University has further stated that intimation was received by the University vide letter dated 14.10.2009 and on receipt of the intimation about the candidates, the University promptly reacted and sent the impugned communications dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No.2 in its disclaimer has mentioned about the notice displayed on the notice board. It is stated that when provisional merit list of all the applicants was prepared and was put on the notice board along with a notice issued by the H.O.D., Computer Applications, asking the candidates to inform the Committee of any mistake in the merit list so prepared to the H.O.D by 15.07.2009. The college also reiterated the stand of the University regarding 50% marks in graduation as the minimum criteria. Respondent No.2 has also placed on record merit list Annexure R- 2/2 put on the notice board at the time of the admission. In this merit list, the petitioner's name figured at serial No.7 and her percentage is shown to be 60.75. It is pleaded on behalf of respondent No.2 that it was the moral and legal duty of the petitioner to have pointed out the discrepancy in the marks indicated in the merit list displayed on the notice board. However, the petitioner neither informed the University nor the college authorities about the discrepancy of the marks and to the contrary fraudulently sought admission to the course. The college has also placed on record another notice Annexure R-2/3 which is also said to be placed on the notice board at the time of admission. This document further reveal that against the column of eligibility, it is specifically mentioned “50% aggregate mark in graduation under 10+2+3 system of examinations”. Not only this, the Prospectus upon which the petitioner has heavily relied to argue that it does CWP No.16889 of 2009 4 not provide for minimum 50% marks as the eligibility criteria for admission to the PGDCA course, reads as under:- “Eligibility PGDCA (i) Graduate (B.Sc./B.A./B.Com. or equivalent under 10+2+3 system of examinations) (ii) B. Tech/ B.E. (iii) Any other examination recognized by the Panjab University as equivalent to (i) and (ii). (iv) The admission will be as per norms laid down by the Panjab University.” Condition (iv) referred to above clearly provide that the admission will be as per the norms laid down by the Panjab University- meaning thereby that the eligibility shall be the same as prescribed in the University Calendar. However, it would have been more appropriate that the Prospectus would have contained a specific condition of at least 50% marks in qualifying examination particularly when similar condition has been incorporated in the eligibility criteria for other Post Graduate Courses. Admittedly, the petitioner was ineligible at the time of admission in the course as she was having less than 50% marks in the qualifying examination which is the essential condition under the University norms referred to above. At the same time, respondent No.2 has also not properly incorporated this necessary condition in clear terms in the Prospectus. This might have led the petitioner to apply and seek admission. To that extent the petitioner may be innocent, but once the University CWP No.16889 of 2009 5 notified the merit list on the notice board indicating 60.75% marks against the name of the petitioner, it was the moral and legal duty of the petitioner to have approached the authorities for at least rectification of the merit list. The petitioner observe silence and sought admission on the basis of the marks/merit list displayed on the notice board. Thus, the petitioner cannot be absolved of the responsibility and cannot be held that she is innocent. Under such circumstances, the admission of the petitioner cannot be maintained. Admittedly, the petitioner was ineligible at the time of admission to the course. A similar issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. Vs. Gis Jose & Ors, 2009 (1) RSJ, 438, wherein the following observations have been made:- “ It was contended by Shri B.V. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the student that the Vice Chancellor had allowed her to continue with the course. However, there is nothing on record to support this fact. Further, such permission was clearly incorrect if at all given. In the subsequent meeting of the Academic Council, the student was not permitted to continue with the course. All these factors were completely ignored by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. Therefore, at least after the Academic Council had rejected the student's request, she could not have been allowed to continue. This did not happen CWP No.16889 of 2009 6 and the college allowed her to take the further examinations for III and IV semesters also. We totally disapprove of all this.” The petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence from the Court merely on the ground that she was admitted by respondent No.2 and has been allowed to study the course. Vide interim order dated 05.11.2009, the petitioner was allowed to avail the hostel accommodation and attend the classes by way of interim measure without creating any right or equity in her favour. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed and it is held that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit on account of the interim order passed by this Court. The petitioner deposited tuition fee of Rs.14295/- with respondent No.2-College as also Rs.3660/- for availing hostel facilities. Respondent No.2 granted admission to the petitioner without properly scrutinising the papers which also contributed to the wrong admission of the petitioner to the Course. Under these circumstances, respondent No.2 is directed to refund the fee of Rs.14295/- to the petitioner. As far hostel fee is concerned, the petitioner has utilised the hostel facilities and as such the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the same. 19..04.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO