IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.29 of 2011 Judgment reserved on: 29.8.2011 Date of decision: 1.9.2011 Ms.Anu Rana …Petitioner Versus H.P. University and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.B.C. Negi, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Ms.Suman Thakur, counsel for Respondent No.3. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed respondent No.3 be directed to grant her admission in M.Ed. course for the academic session 2010-2012. 2. The undisputed facts are that the counselling for filling up the seats in the M.Ed. course in respondent No.3 Vaidh Shankar Lal Memorial, College of Education, V.P.O. Chandi, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan was Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 held on 20th December, 2010 as per the directions issued by this Court. Advertisements were issued in various newspapers from 16th to 19th December, 2010 asking the interested candidates to appear for counselling in the College. The petitioner admittedly did not appear for counselling but has prayed that the College be directed to consider her case for admission. 3. When the record of the case was called for it was found that two candidates, namely, Anamika and Bhim Singh who had been admitted to the M.Ed. course had been granted admission though they had not attended the counselling held on 20th December, 2010. Thereafter, the respondent University was asked to look into the matter and find out how these candidates have been granted admission. The University was directed to file its action taken report. A report was filed by the Registrar of the H.P. University. In the 3 report it has been found that the College had admitted two students who were not present on the day of counselling. The version of the college that the representatives of the students were present was not found to be true. 4. The College was directed to file the response to the said affidavit. The College has filed the response and again reiterated that two candidates had appeared through their duly authorized representatives. Two authority letters have been produced before me. On the face of it, these authority letters appear to be on identical paper. One authority letter is purported to be signed by Bheem Singh son of Daulat Singh, R/o Village Meghawala, P.O.Bareowala, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttrakhand and another by Anamika d/o Sh.Kamal Singh, V.P.O. Mohtli, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. If these authority letters have been written at their respective stations it would be virtually impossible for the authority 4 letters to be on identical papers. Another important aspect is that these authority letters do not have any stamp or receipt of the College. In fact the College has failed to produce any material whatsoever which would even remotely show that these authority letters were in existence at the time when admissions took place on 20th December, 2010. It is more than obvious that these authority letters have been manufactured by respondent No.3 College. 5. I am constrained to observe that a large number of so called colleges are nothing more than teaching shops. Their only interest is to get money by whatsoever means. They are not interested in teaching or in the welfare of the students. The Registrar of the University after due inquiry has found that the aforesaid two candidates were not present and in fact no authorized representatives were present on the said day. If the representatives had been present their signatures would have been obtained 5 on the attendance register. The explanation given by Ms.Suman Thakur that the College authorities thought that the attendance register was to be signed only by the candidates and not by the authorized representatives cannot be accepted. If, as per the College, the authorized representatives could appear for the candidates then the natural corollary was that these representatives should have signed the attendance register on behalf of the candidates. 6. As observed above, even the letters now produced do not in any manner indicate that they were in fact submitted to the College. These are loose papers and there is no endorsement on them permitting the authorized representatives to appear for the candidates. The University has proposed imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- for each irregularly made admission. The said proposal of the University is upheld. 6 7. In addition thereto, I am of the considered view that the College authorities are guilty of trying to fabricate documents to hoodwink this Court which cannot be allowed. Therefore, costs of Rs.50,000/- are imposed upon the College which must be deposited within four weeks from today. The costs shall be paid to the Advocates Welfare Fund, Trustee Committee, Bar Council of H.P. 8. As far as the petitioner is concerned, she cannot be granted admission since she was also not present. This Court would also like to make it clear that for counselling, candidates themselves should appear and no authorized representative can be permitted to appear except in certain extreme circumstances such as where the candidate is suddenly taken ill and it is impossible for the candidate to attend the counselling. The University must frame Rules in this regard. The University shall also frame Regulations that in case the Colleges violate the admission norms in future they can be 7 disaffiliated and/or barred from filling up the vacant seats under the management quota. The University is directed to frame such Rules/Regulations within three months from today. 9. The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid directions. September 1, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge