CWP No.12226 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 20.01.2010 Simaranjit Singh Tiwana Vs. Panjab University, Chandigarh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Jatin Salwan, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.Anupam Gupta, Advocate,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The respondent-University issued Hand Book of Information-2009, for the University Business School, Panjab University, Chandigarh, for making admissions to various branches of the MBA Course. The petitioner claiming to be eligible applied by filing the requisite form. In terms of the Prospectus, the admissions were to be made on the basis of written test i.e. a Common Entrance Test to be followed with group discussion. Written test carries 85%, group discussion 7.5% and personal interview 7.5%. The Prospectus also contained stipulation regarding the eligibility which, inter-alia, prescribed that a candidate is necessarily to sit in the CAT and minimum to score 10% for the candidates of general category and minimum 5% in the case of SC/ST category in each component of CWP No.12226 of 2009 2 CAT. The petitioner could not secure the aforementioned percentage and has not been considered for admission to the course in question. The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition seeking to challenge the aforementioned condition incorporated in the Information Brochure. The contention of the petitioner is that prior to 2009, no such condition was incorporated as eligibility condition for admission to the course and it is only during the academic session 2009-2010 that such a condition has been introduced in the Information Brochure. The validity of the condition has been assailed only on the ground that the condition has been incorporated in the new Information Brochure without adopting the due procedure prescribed under Regulation 8 of the Panjab University Calendar. Relevant extract of Regulations 8 and 9 of the aforesaid Regulations is reproduced as under:- “8. The functions of the Academic Council shall be- (a) ..... (b) .... (c ) subject to control of the Syndicate, to frame general rules for admission to University classes; ..... 9. Whenever there is an urgency, the Vice- Chancellor may take such action as he deems CWP No.12226 of 2009 3 necessary and report the matter at the next meeting of the Council for approval.” Referring to Clause-C of Regulation 8 of the Regulations, it is contended that the rules for admission to University Classes can only be made by the Academic Council subject to control of the Syndicate. It is accordingly argued on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned conditions were specified in the Information Brochure-2009, without the same having been formulated by the Academic Council or the approved by the Syndicate in terms of Regulation 8. The respondents have, however, taken a clear and categoric stand that Information Brochure was duly approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University. Keeping in view the Clause-(c) of Regulation 8, the University was asked to file a specific affidavit whether the entire Prospectus issued for the current session 2009-2010 or even Prospectus earlier issued in last five years, were framed by Academic Council and had the approval of the Syndicate. In response to the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 30.11.2009. an affidavit of the Registrar of the Punjab University, Chandigarh, dated 10.12.2009 has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record. The following averments have been made in the affidavit”- “The contents of the Handbook of Information, including the Application Form, are finalized by the Board of Control, UBS, which has the authority to admit students. Then the contents CWP No.12226 of 2009 4 of the Handbook of Information are got approved from the Dean of the University (DUI) and the Vice-Chancellor. This practice has been followed consistently by the UBS for the last so many years. The record of the UBS for the years 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008 is testimony to this fact/practice. (The record of the year 2005 is not available).” From the above averments made in the affidavit, it appears that Hand Book of Information has been finalised by the Board of Control UBS and the same has been approved by the Dean of the University Instructions (DUI) and the Vice-Chancellor. From paragraph 3 of the affidavit, it is further revealed that for laying rules/norms for admissions to MBA course, the same procedure is being followed which was being followed earlier. Based upon the affidavit filed by the Registrar of the University, it is argued by Mr. Jatin Salwan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions contained in the Information Brochure introduced for the first time in the session 2009, by incompetent authority are liable to be set aside and quashed having been framed and incorporated de horse Regulation 8 (c ). In view of the affidavit of the Registrar of the University and from the reading of the Regulation 8, it is evident that the Information Brochure/Prospectus has been formulated and notified for the CWP No.12226 of 2009 5 purposes of making admissions to the MBA course without being finalised by the Academic Council and the approval of the Syndicate. It is not only the stipulation of cut off marks in the Brochure which is allegedly de horse the regulation, but entire Brochure has been framed in the same manner. Assuming that the entire Brochure has been framed without following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 8, the question which needs consideration for this Court is whether the entire admission made by the University not only to this course but in various other courses, can be said to be invalid on that count. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that admissions are made every year to various courses by the University on the basis of the Information Brochure/ Prospectus issued by the University. Though ignorance of law cannot be an excuse, however, the fact remains that admissions have been made in past and this year on the strength of admission norms formulated in the same pattern notified through the Prospectus issued by the University every year. From the circumstances noticed here-in- above, it has emerged that the Prospectus/Brochure is being issued under the assumed authority by the Board of Control (UBS) with the approval by the Dean of the University Instructions (DUI) and the Vice-Chancellor, though the norms for admission were to be laid by the Academic Council with the approval of the Syndicate. All admissions in the last number of years have been made in the same manner. The petitioner has challenged only one isolated condition of the Prospectus/Brochure. Surely the entire Prospectus/Brochure came CWP No.12226 of 2009 6 into existence without adopting the due procedure prescribed under the Rules, but under the bona-fide assumption of the authority by the functionaries of the University who have exercised the powers. It cannot lost site of the fact that Prospectus/Brochure is a public document and is meant for the benefit of the public/students at large. Even if the entire Prospectus/Brochure or any stipulation made therein is without competence, the petitioner cannot seek any benefit on that basis. The action taken on the basis of the Prospectus/Brochure has to be protected by applying de facto doctrine. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1981, Supreme Court, 1473, has considered a similar issue and made the following observations:- “4 ........... The doctrine is now well established that “the acts of the Officers de facto performed by them within the scope of their assumed official authority, in the interest of the public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and binding, as if they were the acts of officers de jure” (Pulin Behari V. Kind Emperor, (1912) 15 Cal LJ 517 at P. 574) As one of us had occasion to point out earlier, “the doctrine is founded on good sense, sound policy and practical experience. It CWP No.12226 of 2009 7 is aimed at the prevention of public and private mischief and the protection of public and private interest. It avoids endless confusion and needless chaos. An illegal appointment may be set aside and a proper appointment may be made, but the acts of those who hold office de facto are not so easily undone and may have lasting repercussions and confusing sequels if attempted to be undone. Hence the de facto doctrine” (vide Immedisetti Ramkrishnaiah Sons v. State of Andhara Pradesh, AIR 1976 Andh Pra. 193).” Even though the contention of the petitioner cannot be brushed aside lightly, but the fact remains that the career of students who have got admission in response to the aforementioned Prospectus and that too after competing in the Entrance Test, Interview etc. cannot be jeopardised in any manner. Students who have been admitted to this and other courses through the notified norms have had no knowledge of the manner of framing rules of admission. It would not be out of context to say, they are not concerned with framing of admission norms or supposed to even know of it. These norms (rules) for admission are being framed in the same manner for last so many years in alleged violation of statutory provisions. Though the action of University is not justifiable but larger public/students interest CWP No.12226 of 2009 8 do not permit this Court to annul the norms and consequential admissions at this stage. De facto doctrine has to be invoked to save admissions made on the basis of rules of admission framed in violation of law as of necessity. There is another aspect of the matter. The validity of the provisions has not been challenged on its merits. There is nothing in the writ petition even to remotely suggest that the provision itself is arbitrary in nature. In the totality of the circumstances of this case while directing the respondent-University to frame the rules for admissions for future by complying with the provisions of law, I do not interfere in the present writ petition. In view of the above, present writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 20.01.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUEGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES