\ HIGH ”GD’RT OF CmiATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR W.?.§C.[ No. 87ii2§08 ‘TITR‘JNERS Vishnu Prasad and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Order Qost for 03 -4~2008 //V Sdl’ u Far ‘0hirendraM‘Sl wage E /vv/ a; " HIGH COURT §F CHI-IATTISGARE AT BILASPUR w.P.gc.: ye. 871/2998 PETITION—ERS Vishnu Prasad, Sjo Bihari Lal Sahu, aged about 27 years Asiyan Topno, S/o Kirto Topno’ aged about 28 years Moris Bodra, S/o Barnabas Bodra, aged about 36 years Manish Paulus Minj, S10 Albert Minj, aged abeut 28 years Christopher Kerketta, S/o Nicolas Kerketta, aged about 25 years. Jagrani Minj, Djo Augustin Kerketta, aged about 30 years. Mukta Makxima Lakra. D/o Cornelius Lakra, aged about 3O years Prah‘ma Deepika Toppo, D/o Francis Rejusli Toepe, aged about '29 years Anita Barla, D/o Igmsh Barla, aged about 32 vears Santosh Kumar Bhoi, S/o Ranjit Krishna Kumar, S/o-Raghunandan Prasad, aged about 24 years Bhoi, aged about 25 vears Rashmi Rani Kujur, D/o John Walter Kujur, aged about 28 vears Petitioners No. 1 to 12; are students of B.Ed. 2007-08, $t. Thomas College, Raubandha, Bhiiai, Department of B.Ed., sham; Distt. burg (co) Praveen Knmar, sfo Mahendra Kumar Rana, aged about 29 years, Student of B.Ed. 2007—08 Dr. C.V. Raman College of Education, acctor 2, Avanti vmar, Raipur {co} Dinesh Kumar. S/o Nirpai Ram, aged about 23 years, student B.Ed. 2007—08 Central College of LT, Phaphadih, Raipur (CG) Kama} Chandra Xalxo, S/o Cyprian Xalxo, aged about 27 year, student of B.Ed. 2007-08, Pandit Harishankar Shukla Smriu‘ Mahavidvalaya, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (so) ". Jyoti Narayan Gupta, S/o S lashibhushan Sahu, aged about 29 years Lusi Sahu, D,’o Raghumani Sahu, J J if“/xe,i RESPO '‘3I aged about 23 vears Petitioner No. 16 arld 17 are students of B.Ed. 2007-08, Bhilai Maitri College, RishaH Se%r, Bhiiai, Dismct Durg (CG) Govinda Barik, 5/0 Bhadra Barik, aged about 2’7 years, student of B.Ed. 2007—08, Chhattisgarh mahila Mahavidvaiava, Sector-6, Bhi}ai, District Durg (CG) Ajay Kumar, s/‘o Narayan Prasad Yadav, aged a ut 26 years, student of B.Ed. 2007-08, Udav Conege, Chawani, Bhilai, tdistri& Durg (CG) Venus ‘TS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, department of Schoel Education, D.K.S. Bhawan. Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Chh’attisgarh Vyavasayak Pariksha Manda}, 0168, Tagore Hagar Raipur (CG) through its Secretary. Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla Umversity, Raipur (CG) through its D negistrar Assistant Registra (Academic), Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur (CG) Chhattisgarh Council of State Education Research Training, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG) through its Director Principal, St. Thomas Coilegc, Ruabandha, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG) Principal, Dr. C.V. Raman College of Education, Sector ‘2, Avanti 'v’ihar, Raipur (CG) Principal, Central Coilege of I.T., Phaphadih, Raipur (CG) Principal, Pandit Harishankar Shukla Smriti mahavidyalaya, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG) Principal, Bhilai Maitri College, Rishali Sector, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) Principal, Chhattisgarh Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Sector—6, Bhilai District Durg (CG) Principal, Uday College, Chawani, B‘miai, Distt. Burg (CG) 18. 19. 19. ll. , r / (w M Pmsent:- Shn' B.D. Guru, Counsel for the peu'l'ioners. Shri Vinay Pandcy, Cgunsel for the mspondent No. 2 akDER {93-4-2003 Dhirendra Eishra. J. The petitioners are students of B.Ed. 2007-08. Thev are prosecuting their studies in various educational colleges of the State. They belong to the States of Jharkhand and Orissa, ln Iesponse to the notiflcation dated 20-4-2006 of Annexure P-z issued bv the School Education Department, the petitioners applied for admission in B.Ed. course and appeared in entrance test held on 13m June, 2007. They were issued admission card (Annexure P—B) for the enirance examination. On the basis of merit, the petitioners were called for counseling conducted by Chhattisgarh Council of State Education, Research Training (for brevity, SCERT‘) on 28—7-2007 and they were selected vide counseling selection notice of Annexure P—4. They joined their respective allotted colleges and paid requisite tuition fee and started prosecuting their studies. The respondent No. 3 University issued eligibility certificate. ‘2. The University passed order dated l8— lO—‘2007 (Annexure P—7) to the effect that the students who are admitted in B.Ed. course and who do not have 50% marks in aggregate in their prequaliiication examination, shall not be entitled to appear in the B.Ed. examination 2007-08 and elig‘bility certificate issued to them is cancelled with immediate edect. Thev were communicated about cancellation of their eligibility certincate on 17-1—2008 vide Annexure P-9 on the ground that they are resident of other states and they have not obtained 50% marks in the qualifying examination. 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are having 50% marks in Honors subject. Brochure of Annexure £12 does not mention that only the candidates who are having 4 W {2/ 50 % marks in aggregate in gaduation, are entit1€d to take admission in the B.Ed. course of 2007-08. Even at the time of counseiing no such objection was raised in this regard and all of a sudden the Universitv issued the order and directed that the candidates who are not having 50% marks in aggregate in graduation are not entitled to appear in the BEd. examination and cancelled the eiigibiiity certificate. 4. State of Chhattisgarh and SCER’T‘ in their joint reply have averred that the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 University and Iis is between the petitioners and the University concemed and the answering respondents have unnecessarily been arrayed as parties. It is been further stated that the ground taken by the petitioners that the condition of 50% minimum marks in the qualifying examination was subsequently introduced is Without any substance as the above matter has been conclusively decided vide judgment dated 23-8-2007 passed in W.P. No. 4262/2007 and it has been held that the authorities have committed no illegality in amending their own rules through a subsequent gazette notification thereby making the same in conformity with the NC'T‘E Regulations. lt has been further averred that in the present case, the petitioners have their graduation degee with Honors and they were admitted to the B.Ed. course on the basis of their mark sheet which shows that all of them have obtained minimum qualifying marks of 5O 0/0 in their graduation with Honors. The stand of the above respondent was also accepted by the University authorities which at the first instance issued eligibility certification in favour of the petitioners who were admitted to B.Ed course through counseling. 5. On the other hand, the respondent University in their reply referring to Clause 32(2) of the National Councn for Technical Education {Recognition Norms and Procedure (Amendment) Regulations 2006 published in the Gazette of UI (Dy india {Assadharam vide notiflmtion dated 20-7-2006 submitted that the candidate with at least 50% marks either in bacheior’s degree and/or in the Masters degee or any other qualiiication equivalent thereto, are eijgible for the admission. The respondents University formulated the revised Ordinance No. 59 for B.Ed. examination in consonance with the State vide Annexure R—3 & 4/ 1. For the purposes of caiculating marks obtained by the candidate in graduation course, the marks obtained by the candidate in each year is to be added and thereafter percentage of marks would be calculated for eligibility of admission in B.E‘d. in order to examine the eligibility of the candidate for admission in BEd. course, a five members committee was constituted and the committee vide report of Annexure R] 3 85 4f'2 submitted the list of students who were in the zone of disqualification and information was also obtained from Sambalpur University and the authorities of the aforesaid University at Orissa categorically specified that aggegate for passing the degee examination at the end of final examination shall be total of the aggegate of hrst examination and final examination taken together (Annexure R] 3&4] 3) . o. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners applied for admission as they were eligible for admission as notihed in Pre—B.Ed. examination, 2007 Admission Rules of Annexure P—2. They successfully participated in the entrance examination conducted by SCERT and thereafter they were granted admission on the basis of counseling. They submitted their mark sheet and other testimonials at the time of counseling and they did not suppress anything. After admission they deposited the requisite admission and other fees in their colleges and are pursuing their studies for the la‘st one year. The University after issuing eligibility certificate to the petitioners has cancelled the same on the ground that they did not secure minimum 50% marks in graduation examination which is to if“t;a “N7 , 1, t my an?“ be computed after adding the_ marks obtained by the candidate in all the three years, through no such condition was mentioned in the brochure of Annexure P—‘Z. Whereas the stand of the respondents No. 1 and 5 State of Chhattisgarh and the SCERT 'is that the petitioners were qualified to be admitted in the B.Ed. course as they secured 50% marks in the Honors course. It was further argued that because of the admissions of the petitioners, interest of any meritorious v student has not been affected as even after admission of the petitioners, number of seats are vacant in various educational coiieges of Chhattisgarh. Considering this aspect, this Court ailowed the writ petition (C) NO. 723212007 (Soni Rakhi Bek and others —-v- State of Chhattisgarh and others) vide order dated 28-3-2008. 7. On the other hand, Shri Vinay Pandey? learned counsel for the University contended that the Ordinance No. 59 of the University is in consonance with the National Council for Technical Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure (Amendment) Reguiations 2006 issued under Section 32(2) of the National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993 as also the rules of the State Government. The elig'bility certificate granted to the petitioners was subject to condition that the candidate fulfils the condition of examination notified in the Ordinance of the University and fulfils ail the conditions prescribed in the guiding principles of Higher Education Department meant for admission in class. Mistake, if any, committed by the University at the time of issuing eligibility}. certificate can be rectihed at any stage and the petitioners who are otherwise not qualified for admission as they did not secure minimum 50% marks, their admission was contrary to the rules and regulations and they cannot be permitted to appear in the examination. 8. i have heard iearned counsel for the parties. 3‘ 9. It is not in dispute that thé brochure for admission in B.Ed. course of Annexure P2 did not mention that the candidates desirous of admission should have minimum 50% marks in the qualifying examination and for the above purposes, the marks obtained by the candidate in the three years of the graduation course is to be added. The petitioners being misled by the brochure applied for admission along with their mark sheet of Honors course. They were permitted to appear in the entrance examination and thereafter they were selected and gven admission in various educational colleges. They have incurred huge expenses by way of admission and other fees and they are also pursuing their studies for the last one year. 10. The University authorities after due verification gamed all such students including the petitioners eligibility certihcate. The State as also the SCERT in their joint return have averred that as per their interpretation, the petitioners have secured minimum 50% marks in the qualifying examination. However, the University subsequently constituted a committee of 5 members to scrutinize the eligibility of students on the basis of the marks secured by them in the qualifying examination and on their report, the eligibility certificate was cancelled and the petitioners were informed about the same in the month of January, 2008. It is also not in dispute that because of the admission of the petitioners, no meritorious students were denied admission in the year 2007-08. The SCERT has since lowered minimum marks in qualifying examination from 50% to 45 % from the academic year 2008-09. This Court considering all these aspects allowed the writ petition (C) NO. 723212007 (Soni Rakhi Bek and others —v- State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected matters vide order dated 28—3— 2008 and directed the University to issue admission cards to the petitioners for final examination. // 8 @% 0/ ¢n 11. The quesiion is Whether at this juncture, even if it is held that petitioners do not qualify to be admitted in the B.Ed. course as they did not secure 50% minimum marks in the graduation course as per stand of the University, whether the petitioners’ admission should be cancelled and whether they should be deharred from appearing in the examination ? 1’2. in the matter of Panjab Engineering Coilege —v- Sanjav Guiat'i and othersl, the Honhle Supreme Court allowed the illegally admitted students of medical college Who had already completed one or two semesters in the college to continue their studies With an observation that these students have already completed one or two semesters, it will be unjust to cancel their admission at this stage and to remove their name from the rolls of the colleges. 13. In the matter of A. §udha -v- llniversitv of M—vsote and anotherig while dealing with admission to first year MBBS course in private college where inelig'ble candidates were admitted contrary to regulations regarding admission, the Hon’hle Supreme Court allowed the students to continue to pursue their course by observing thus :— “l—lowever, the appellant was quite innocent and she was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by none else than the principal of the institute on the said letter in regard to the eligibility of the admission in the First year MBBS course. In the circumstances, therefore, the appellant should not be penalized by not allowing her to continue her studies in the MBBS course. Prima facie it was the fault of the Principal of the institute but whatever the Principal had stated in his letter to the appellant was on a bona tide interpretation of the regulations framed by/ l (1933) sce 517 3 (1937) 4 sec 537 QK Mysore University for admission to MBBS course for the academic year 1985-86, which to some extent suffer h‘om ambiguity. The regulations should have been more clear and specihc. Therefore, whiie dismissing the appeal it is directed that the appellant shall be allowed to prosecute her studies in the MBBS course, and that her result for the First year MBBS examination be declared Within two weeks from date. l4. In the matter of Ashok Chand Singhvi —-v- University of Jodhpur and othera, allowing the appeal of the petitioner student, the institution was directed that the admission of the appellant will continue by observing thusp “When all facts were before the Universitv and nothing was suppressed by the appellant, it would not be proper to penalize the appellant for no fault of his. 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. But it is curious that all the same the resolution of the Syndicate was also kept alive. 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 tide 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 3 (l9‘o’9) 1 SCC 399 10 basis of the said resolution of the Syndicate. When after considering all facts and circumstances and also the obiections by the ofiice to the admission of a candidate, the Vice- Chalicelior directed the admission of such a candidate, such admission could not be said to have been made through mistake. Assuming that the appeliant was admitted through mistake, the appeiiant not being at fault, he should not suffer for the mistake committed by the Vice Chanceilor and the Dean of the Facuity of Engineering. The appellant had secured more than 60 per cent of marks in the aggregate in the Diploma Examination and was not disqualified for admission in that regard. Therefore, the order Withholding the admission of the appellant cannot be sustained.” 15. In the matter of Anil Eaigadithava and others ~v— State of Karnat'aka and others4, the students securing admission in collusion with the selection committee, the State cancelling the admission of the student however, promoting the members of the selection committee, their admission was not challenged by any other eligble candidate nor they deprived any merited of their legitimate seats, considering that the student had already studied upto 2 years in tne institution, in these circumstances, cancellation orders of the admissions were set aside, hOWever it has been observed that this shall not be treated as piecedent. 16. in the matter of iiaharishi ‘Dayanand tiniversit! -v- ELLE. §araswati College of Education5, students were admitted in contravention of rules framed by NCT‘E regarding teacher students ratio of 1:10, the University refusing permission for admission .of extra student, in these , (1995) 6 scc 531 5 (2000) 7 scc 746 my Cy Circumstances, tha High Court directed the University to permit admission of such students, was held to be contrary to the guidelines of the NCTE and the University statutes, however considering that extra students in question had already completed the two year coulse, paid the examination fee and were allowed bv the university to take the examination, the Hon'hie Supreme Court directed the Universitv to release their result. 1'7. in the instant matter as already observed that the petitioners did not suppress anything at the time of admission, they participated in the entrance test and after due selection they were admitted to various colleges by SCERT‘, the University also issued them eligibility certificate, the brochure published for B.Ed. Course admission for the year 2007-08 did not spec’mcally mention that the candidates seeking admission should have obtained 50% minimum marks in qualifying examination and that the marks in the graduation would be calculated on the basis of aggregate of the marks secured by the candidate in all the three vears of the graduation course. SCERT considering that the petitioners had secured total 50% marks in Honors course considering them eligible admitted them which was also not objected to by the University authorities, however after conducting enquiry, the University cancelled their eligibility certincate in the month of January, 2008 on the ground that for the purpose of minimum qualifying marks in the graduation, the marks obtained by the student in all the three years in the graduation would be taken into consideration. it is also not in dispute that in the instant case, because of admission of the petitioners, no meritorious student has been deprived of the admission as even after admission of the petitioners, number of seats in various educational colleges in the state are still lying vacant. Further more NCTE has reduced the qualifying marks for admission in the B.Ed. course from 50% to 45%. Taking into consideration ~fhe above facts, placing reiiance in the principles of law laid down by the Hon%1e Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be a1lowed and accordingly, the same is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be permitted to continue their studies in the institutions where they have been admitted and they shaii also be aiiowed to appear in B.Ed. examination for 2007—08.\\ sal- ‘L’ Dhirendra Misima} Judge i ’ 99‘44-2b08 18. J- e“, “; :er