IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2008 Date of decision: 23rd May, 2008 Renu Joon and others … Petitioners Versus Maharishi Dayanand University and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parveen K. Rohila, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate for respondent No.3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been filed by 11 students of B.Ed. course, studying in Dayawanti Memorial College of Education, PADA Gurgaon (hereinafter called the ‘college’), which has been represented by its managing committee as respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (respondent No.1) is not permitting them to appear in the final examination and has cancelled their admission in B.Ed. course and has further given direction that the fees be refunded to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners pray that order conveyed through letter dated 11th Civil Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2008 March, 2008 (Annexure P-8) be quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. Respondent-university, vide Annexure P-8, had communicated to the Principal of college about the sending back of the registration return of the students as the admissions of these students had been made without counseling carried by the University. It was further stated in the communication (Annexure P-8) that the cases of such nature had been considered by the Vice Chancellor and orders had been passed that admissions made against vacant seats, without going through the prescribed procedure being illegal were wrong and could not be regularized. It was further stated therein that no institution can be allowed to throw rules and procedures of admission to winds. Therefore, the university had sent back the registration return and documents pertaining to 11 students (petitioners) to the college authorities. Similar controversies were examined by us earlier. Three writs bearing CWP No. 5564 of 2008, 6225 of 2008 and 6179 of 2008 were preferred by three colleges, who had made admission of the students without participation of the students in the counseling held by the university, which was the Nodal Agency for the admission and had conducted the entrance test. The above mentioned three writ petitions were decided vide a common judgment rendered in Deen Dayal Rastogi College of Education through its Chairman v. State of Haryana and another, CWP No.5564 of 2008 decided on 6th May, 2008. We had noticed the following stand of university, arguments of the counsel for the college and had expressed our conclusions. Since counsel for the parties have relied upon judgment rendered by this bench in the case of Deen 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2008 Dayal Rastogi College (Supra), it will be apposite here to reproduce extensively from the judgment: “This Court had issued notice of motion on April 3, 2008. Dr.Balram Gupta along with Mr.Anurag Goel has filed the written statement and the matter has been argued by the counsel for the parties. In the written statement, respondent- university has taken the stand that university was declared competent authority by the State Government for conducting B.Ed. Common Entrance Text, 2007 through centralized counseling for making admissions to B.Ed. regular course in all the educational colleges in the State of Haryana for the session 2007-08. It has been stated therein that on the basis of performance in the entrance test, merit list was drawn for holding counseling to make admission in various colleges of education. The self-financing colleges in the Haryana State also consented to fill up their seats from the merit list drawn by the respondent-university. It has been stated that the first counseling had to conclude from 5th September, 2007 to 21st September, 2007 and the second counseling was scheduled from 23rd September, 2007 to 29th September, 2007. It has been stated that the B.Ed. – CET Prospectus 2007-08 contained the following provision. “No Counseling shall be held and no admissions shall be made after 30.9.2007. In case any seats are left vacant upto 30.9.2007, these shall not be allowed to be filled after this date. Also, if any new College of Education is granted recognition by NCTE in the State of Haryana, after 30.9.2007, the same shall be considered for affiliation and admission in the next academic session i.e. 2008-09.” It has been further pleaded in the written statement that after the cut off date i.e., 30.09.2007, the cases for affiliation of new educational colleges recognized by National Council for Teachers Education were not processed, considered and no 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2008 admission was given. However, two self-financed colleges preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 14963 of 2007 and 14941 of 2007 and sought direction from this Court that they be permitted to fill up the vacancies. This Court on 03.10.2007 passed the following interim direction: “The grievance of the petitioner is that though centralized admissions are being held and last date for completing the admission has been fixed but no mechanism has been worked out for giving opportunity to all the available students even though vacant seats are available. Such a centralized counseling does not serve the purpose for which centralized admission are held. We have heard the counsel for the University and the State. No reply has been filed so far and arguments addressed do not meet the challenge in the petition. In view of the above, the time being crucial, we direct the respondents to take immediate further steps to give opportunity to all the available students at the earliest so as to fill up the vacant seats. List again on 12.10.2007. Let the reply be filed before the next date of hearing.” It has been stated by the respondent-university that in pursuance of above interim direction dated 03.10.2007, a further counseling for admission was held from 7th October, 2007 to 12th October, 2007 and the counseling which continued upto 13.10.2007 in respect of all colleges of education, there was zero position of vacancies in all the participating colleges of education. When the counseling concluded on 13.10.2007 and this position was placed before this Court on 18.10.2007, due to which above said two writ petitions No.14963 of 2007 and 14941 of 2007 were rendered infructuous. It has been stated by the respondent-university in the written statement that the admission process stood concluded on 13.10.2007 and thereafter no admission was 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2008 allowed. It has been further stated in the written statement that there is no provision for any of the colleges of education, who participated in the counseling, to fill up the vacancies at their own level, which had arisen for the reason that some students had not reported after the counseling. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by Dr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr.Anurag Goel that the claim of the college that they made admission of these five students on 26th October, 2007 is palpably wrong as the names of these five students have not figured in the list of students which was received by the university on 12th November, 2007. For the first time, names of these five students have been mentioned in a communication dated 26th October, 2007, which was received by the university in January, 2008. It has been contended that had the admission been made on 26th October, 2007, the names of these five students ought to have included in the list submitted on 12th November, 2007. Therefore, admission of these five students was made in the last week of December or in early January as the communication purportedly written on 26th October, 2007 has been received in January 2008. It has been further submitted that the college cannot be allowed to make backdoor entry of the students as merit has to be adhered to. Dr.Balram Gupta has further contended that if the colleges are permitted to make admission in this fashion, then after the counseling those students, who are much lower in the merit can be admitted by the colleges without any regulatory/ supervisory mechanism of the university, which remained in force till conclusion of the counseling. It has been further urged that in case this practice is permitted, colleges will be able to sell the vacant seats to non- meritorious students. Ms.Ranjana Shahi appearing for the petitioner-college stated that after the counseling, due to non-reporting of few students, certain seats became vacant and in order to recover the costs, admission has been given to these five students. Therefore, it is too late, when the final examination is going to 5 Civil Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2008 be held, for the respondent-university to refuse these students to undertake examination. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the firm opinion that colleges cannot be permitted to make admissions after the cut off date of counseling without supervisory and regulatory control of the university, which was a nodal university for making admissions. The very concept of the entrance examination drawing up merit list and to grant admission on the basis of the merit list in open competition will be set to naught in case colleges at their own make admission after the cut off date. Furthermore, there is serious dispute between the college and the university as on which date admission was granted. The apprehension of the university that the admission was granted much later and students have not attended complete course cannot be said to be unfounded, especially when names of these students reached the university for the first time in January, 2008, while the admission process stood concluded on 13th October, 2007. The respondent-university, to ensure academic excellence, has to take all necessary measures, i.e., cut off date is strictly adhered to, merit in admission is ensured and only those students are permitted to take examination, who have attended the courses as per the academic calendar in force by the university. We cannot allow the standards being kept by the university to be compromised, simply because a college will not be able to recover its expenses. Hence, we find no merit and dismiss all the three writ petitions.” To distinguish the above judgment, Mr. R.K. Malik Advocate for the petitioners has submitted as follows: (i) He has contended that in case of the petitioners’, admission was made on 28th October, 2007. (ii) He has very fairly admitted that admission was made after the cut-off date i.e., 30th September, 2007 fixed by the University 6 Civil Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2008 and extended in pursuance of orders of this Court dated 13th October, 2007 being the last date. But he has stated that in case of admission of the petitioners, advertisement (Annexure P-1 and P-2) were given in two vernacular newspapers Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Jagran on 24th October, 2007 and 25th October, 2007 respectively. (iii) He further stated that the petitioners had appeared in the entrance test and had obtained marks which were higher than those of the last candidate who has succeeded in the counseling. He has projected before us that it will be a case of hardship, where the students have studied for one year, to deny them admission at this stage because of fault of the college. (iv) Mr.R.K.Malik has also heavily relied upon the Interim State Policy/ Guidelines, by the State Government (Annexure P-9). The arguments advanced by Mr.R.K.Malik have been vehemently contested by Dr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate appearing for the University. It has been stated by Dr.Gupta that the University had concluded the counseling on 13.10.2007 and zero position of vacant seats was placed before this Hon'ble Court on 18.10.2007. He has submitted that any admission made without counseling is wrong and illegal. It has been further submitted that the respondent-college was warned by the University authorities, when advertisements were given, not to make any admission. It will be necessary here to reproduce the relevant portion of the written statement to fortify the submissions made by Dr.Balram Gupta, which is as under: “The Colleges Branch of the answering respondent University issued following instructions to its Registration and 7 Civil Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2008 Scholarship Branch vide letter dated 28.11.2007 with a copy to the Chairman/ President of the respondent No.3 institution where the petitioners got admission in B.Ed. regular Course: ‘A list of students admitted in various Colleges of Education under the jurisdiction of this University has already been supplied to you for necessary reference. It has been noticed that some Colleges of Education have put up notices in the news papers for filling up vacant seats. I am directed to inform you in this regard that no Colleges has been allowed to fill up vacant/ left out seats at its level for the current session. Legal advice was also sought in the matter, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference. You are requested to take care of while registering the B.Ed. students that only those students who have sought admission through centralized counseling are registered and the students admitted without proper permission from the University or State Admission Committee may not be registered.’ A copy of letter dated 28.11.2007 is enclosed herewith as Annexure R-1&2/1.” It has been further submitted that since admissions of the 11 students was made by the college at their own level and the college was not authorized to make admission, the University has rejected these wrong admissions. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. Maharishi Dayanand University is an autonomous body. Any directions issued by the Government of Haryana in the Year 2003 are not binding upon them. Even otherwise, by afflux of time, these guidelines have lost their relevance. When University has been warning the colleges from time to time and repeatedly directing them not to make admissions after the cut off date, the college has committed a grave error in granting admission to the 8 Civil Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2008 petitioners. We cannot appreciate the argument of Mr.Malik that it is a case of hardship and for the last many years, this Court on the basis of equity, has been condoning the irregularity in admissions made without counseling. Be that as it may, some day this Court has to take a stand and tell the colleges to adhere to the rules and regulations and procedure prescribed by the University. The errant colleges have been making admissions after the counseling had concluded, according to their own will and whim in violation of the instructions of the University and on approaching of the students at the fag end of academic session, this Court, without laying a precedent, had been allowing students to appear in examination. This has emboldened the colleges to continue with the wrong. Taking this into consideration, in the case of Deen Dayal Rastogi College of Education (supra), we had observed as under: “Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the firm opinion that colleges cannot be permitted to make admissions after the cut off date of counseling without supervisory and regulatory control of the university, which was a nodal university for making admissions. The very concept of the entrance examination drawing up merit list and to grant admission on the basis of the merit list in open competition will be set to naught in case colleges at their own make admission after the cut off date.” At the same time, we cannot appreciate the conduct of the University, as it has never taken the colleges to task, who have been perpetuating wrong by making admissions after the cut off date despite specific directions. The University has ample power to impose penalty or disaffiliate the colleges, who do not adhere to the instructions issued by the University from time to time. It is for the University to strictly ensure compliance of its directions/ instructions issued, since the University has 9 Civil Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2008 failed to rein the colleges, we have been placed in such a piquant situation. Since we have already dismissed the petitions filed by the college es on the ground that admissions made after the cut off date cannot be regularized, present writ petition also deserves to be dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty, if so advised, to pursue alternative relief of damages from the college and University in accordance with remedies available to them under law. We find no merit in the present writ petition and hence the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE May 23, 2008 rps 10