HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU OWP No. 774/2005 Date of Decision: 04.12.2008 Ameet Singh. v. University of Jammu and Ors. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH, JUDGE. Appearing counsel: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. S. Thakur, Advocate. i) Whether approved for reporting in Press/Journal/Media : Yes/No ii) Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes/No _______________________________________________ ________________________________ Ameet Singh petitioner had taken Annual Examination of B.Sc. Part-III for the Session Annual 2005 when pursuant to University of Jammu’s holding Entrance Test for admission to the Master’s Course in Computer Application (MCA for short), he was found entitled to a seat in the Course against the seats reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. This was, however, subject to clearance of B. Sc. Part-III Examination by him. He, however, does not appear to have cleared B. Sc. Part-III examination as he had been informed by the University to re-appear in Mathematics. Dis-satisfied with his result of B. Sc. Part-III examination, informing him to re-appear in the Mathematics paper, he applied for 2 its Re-evaluation. He simultaneously requested the University to keep one seat reserved in MCA Course for him because he was sure of getting through on Re-evaluation of the Mathematics paper. His representations for reserving one seat having remained un-attended, he had filed an appeal too with the University. In the meanwhile, on Re-evaluation of his Mathematics paper on 18.10.2005, he was found to have secured twenty one marks as against the earlier evaluation of four (4) marks. He was thus declared to have passed B. Sc. Part-III examination in the First Division. He, thereafter, represented his case to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for permitting him to undergo MCA Course. Accepting his representation, the Vice-Chancellor permitted his admission to the Course on 17th of November, 2005 under Roll No. 58-MCA/2K5. It was during petitioner’s continuance of studies in MCA Course that the University, vide its order no. DAA/05/5432-33 dated 28th November, 2005, informed the Head, Department of Computer Sciences that petitioner’s admission to the Ist Semester of MCA Course had been cancelled with immediate effect. Aggrieved by cancellation of his admission to the Ist Semester of MCA Course, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of University’s order no. DAA/05/5432-33 dated 28th 3 November, 2005, besides a command to the respondents to treat him as a regular student of MCA Course for the Session 2005-06 and allow him to pursue his studies. University of Jammu has justified the impugned communication on the ground that admission of a candidate on declaration of his B. A/B. Sc./B. Com. Part-III Final Examination on Re-evaluation, to a Master’s Degree Course may be permissible only if seats were available and the merit of such candidate was higher than that of the candidate who was at the top of the waiting list of the concerned Teaching Department, provided, however, that no admission would be made in the Teaching Department working on Semester pattern of the University after fifteen working days of the commencement of the teaching programme in the department concerned or twenty calendar days after the meeting of the Appellate Committee, whichever happens later. As the petitioner’s case would not fall within the parameters of Statute 26 of the University, so he was not entitled to admission to the MCA Course and in that view of the matter, University had considered it fit to withdraw petitioner’s admission because continuance of such a practice, besides being contrary to the spirit of the Statute, would form, a bad precedent. 4 Relying on Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra reported as AIR 1976 SC 376, State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Radhika Nargotra and ors reported as 1993 SLJ 257 and Nusrat Jahan Tabasum v. University of Jammu and ors reported as 2004 KLJ 119, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Suresh Kumar, submitted that, as the petitioner had completed the MCA Course during the currency of the writ petition so operation of order impugned in the petition, at this stage, would work great injustice to him as he had faired extremely well in the Semester examinations, as the percentage of marks secured by him in Semester examinations, which was more than 60%, would so demonstrate. Conscious decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor in allowing petitioner’s admission to the MCA Course after declaration of his result on Re-evaluation, may not thus require its up-setting because while permitting petitioner’s admission, the Vice-chancellor had construed the Statutes liberally so that the petitioner did not suffer for the lapse of the University in not properly evaluating his Mathematics paper. The order passed by the University, in any case, being violative of the principle of Audi alteram Partem, was liable to be set aside and quashed as the petitioner had not been heard by 5 the University before issuing the impugned communication, urges petitioner’s learned counsel. Per contra, Sh. D. S. Thakur, the University’s counsel, submitted that the petitioner cannot claim equity because of his having completed the Course when the Statute governing the admission would not permit such admission. Learned counsel submitted that principles of natural justice may not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case when the admission of the petitioner was against the University Statute. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments which the petitioner’s counsel had relied upon as also the Statute which has been pressed in service by the University to support the impugned communication. Learned Vice-Chancellor of Jammu University appears to have relaxed the Statute while considering petitioner’s case for admission to the MCA Course after being satisfied that the petitioner should not suffer for the lapse of the University in not evaluating his Mathematics paper properly. As a result of this decision of the Vice-Chancellor, the petitioner had acquired a right to undergo MCA Course. Withdrawal of petitioner’s admission to 6 the Course, at a later occasion, would thus, certainly deprive him of the right which he had acquired on being granted admission to undergo the Course. The University was, therefore, required to hear him before cancelling his admission as to what had he to say to justify Vice-Chancellor’s action of granting him admission to the MCA Course in relaxation of rules. This opportunity having not been granted by the University to the petitioner renders its order invalid being in violation of the principle of Audi alteram Partem. Impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside and quashed being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That apart, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, that his Court had stayed operation of the communication impugned in the writ petition on 1.12.2005, permitting the petitioner to undergo MCA Course and the petitioner has completed the MCA Course during the pendency of this petition securing good percentage of marks in all those papers, result whereof, had been declared by the University, and he has been a meritorious student in his student career, it would not be proper to permit the University to operate the impugned order of cancellation of petitioner’s admission to the MCA Course. 7 Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration and finding the impugned order to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, I am inclined to allow this writ petition quashing University’s communication no. DAA/05/5432-33 dated 28th November, 2005, cancelling petitioner’s admission to MCA Course and would, accordingly, direct the University and its functionaries to treat the petitioner a regular student of MCA Course for the Session 2005-06 and declare the result of the examinations he had taken for completion of the Course. (J. P. Singh) Judge JAMMU: 04.12.2008: Anil Raina, Secy