HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR bIVISION BENCH: Hon'ble Shri bhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. W.P.fC) No.6834/08 (Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India) * PETITIONERS Vs RESPONbENTS 1. Rishabh Sharma. son of Shri S.K. Sharma, aged about 17 years, resident of Raipur, Tah. & Dist. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through its Father S.K. Sharma. 2. /\kash Kumar Gautam.son of*Shri Mahendra Kamne, aged about 17 years, resident of Raipur, Tah. <& Dist. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through its Father Mahendra Kamne. 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, bepartment of Technical Education, Mantralaya, b.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. birector, Technical Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, LTlnend Polytechnic compound, Byron Bazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Through its Registrar Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical Univefsity, Bhilai. burg (Chhattisgarh) 4. Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education. Through its Secretary. Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. W.P.(C) No.6333/08 (Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India) PETITIONERS l.Shri Jug Mahadev Education Society (A Society registered under the Chhattisgarh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973) through its Secretary ^ushil Chandrakar, S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Chandrakar, Aged about 43 year'5, Muktfl Ndgcir, Du^ Page 2 of 12 Vs RESPONbENTS (Chhattisgarh) 2.Ku. Kiran Sharma, b/o Shri O.P. Sharma, aged 18 years, R/o Sector- 8, Bhilai, bistrict Durg (CG) 3.Ku. Manjula Thakur, &/o Shri^ G.S. Thakur, aged 18 years, R/o Sector- 1, Bhilai Nagar, bistrict burg (C&) 4.Amrendra Jha, S/o Shir Kamdev, aged 21 years, R/o B-57, Rajgamar, District Korba (CG) 5.Ku. Angita, t)/o Shri Paras Ram Sahu, aged 18 years, R/o Vtllage Borsi Post Kapasda, bistrict burg (CG) 6.Ku. Priyanka Nema, D/o Shri Basant Kumar Nema, aged 18 years, R/o Takiya Para, District burg (CG) 7.Nitin Kumar Upadhyay, S/o Shri K Upadhyay, aged 19 years, R/o Supela, Bhilai. District Durg (CG) S.Chandan Banchhor, S/o Shri Rojendra Kumar Banchhor, aged 19 years, R/o Village Jarway Post Surdung bt'strict burg (CG) 9.Sanjay Singh, S/o Shri Anil Kumar Singh, aged 30 years. R/o Housing Board Colony, Industrial Area Bhilai District L>urg (CG) 10. bhiraj Tiwari, S/o Shri B.L. Tiwari. aged 21 years, R/o CSEB Colony, Kosabadi Korba District Korba (CG) 11. Shrikant Sharma. S/o Shri K.K. Sharma, aged 19 years, R/o Sector 5 Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (CG) 1.5tate of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department * of Technical Education, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2.Director, birectorate of Technical Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, Women Polytechnic Premises, Byron Bazar, Rflipur (Chhattisgarh) S.Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Through the Regis+rar Nor+h Park Avenue, Sector-8, Bhilai, bistrict burg Page 3 of 12 (Chhattisgarh) 4.Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal, through the Controller, C/168, Tagore Nagar. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^ . W.P.m No.7027/08 (Petition under Arti'cle 226 of Constitution of India) PETITIONERS ^ Vs RESPONDENTS l.Shekhar Baghel, son of Shri Santosh Kumar Baghel, aged about 19 years, resident of Muwa/Pragati Nagar, Tah. & bist. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through its Father Santosh Kumar Baghel. 2.5hoab Jafari, son of Shri Mohd. Hasan Jafari, aged about 19 years, resident of C 1/1 Surya Vihar, Ring Road, Raipur. bist. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, bepartment of Technical Education, Mantralaya, b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. birector, Technical Educdtion, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. Umend Polytechnic compound, Byron Bazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University. Through its Registrar Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai,.Dur9 (Chhattisgarh) 4. Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education. Through its Secretary, Chhdttisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. W.P.(C) No.7026/08 (Article 226 of Constitution of India) PETITIONERS l.Manoj Kumar Indoria, son of Shri G.R. Indoria, aged about 18 years, resident of New Adarsh Nagar, Durg, Dist. t^urg (Chhattisgarh). 2.Thadi Neha, daughter of Shri T.S. Kumar, aged about 18 years, resident of Railway Engineering Colony. qrr. 196/2 Near 5Tation Page 4 of 12 Vs RESPONDENTS Road, Raipur Ganj, Oist. Raip\ (Chhattisgarh). S.Harsh Kumar Sahu, son of Shri Tilak Ram Sahu, aged about 20 years, resident of Civil Line Cqlony, Kanker, Dist. Kanker (Chhattisgarh) 1. State of Chhattjsgarh, through Secretary, Oepartment of Technical Education, Mantralaya, &.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Director, Technical Education. Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Umend Polytechnic compound, Byron Bazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Throug^h its Registrar Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai. burg (Chhattisgarh) 4. Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Through its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, Chhattisgat'h. W.P.(C) No.6890/08 (Article 226 of Constitution of India) PETITIONER Vs RESPONbENTS Manish Singh Rajput, Aged about 20 years, S/o Dr. Jai Singh Rajput, Presently Student of 1st Semester of B.E. at - G.b. Rungta College of Engineering <& Technology, Kohka, Kurud Road, Bhilai, District-burg, R/o 18, b, Rua Bandha Sector, Bhilai, District- Durg (CG) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, throu^h The Secretary. bepartment of Technical Education, b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Through its Registrar, North Park Avenue, Sector-8, Bhilai, bistrict burg (CG) 3. G.t). Rungta College of Engineering <& Technology, Through- its Principal, Kohka. Kurud Road, Bhilai, bis+rict- burg (^) Page 5 of 12 <& W.P.fC) No.7025/08 (Article 226 of Constitution of India) PETITIQNERS Vs RESPONbENTS Miss Neha behankar, aged about 19 yeors, b/o Shri Mukund behanker, Student, R/o Near Ram Mandi'r, Tilaknagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Mantralaya, b.K.S. ^Bhawan. Raipur (CG). 2. birector, Directorate of Technical Education, Government of ChhQttisgarh, Women Polytechnic Premises, Byron Bazar, Raipur 3. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Throygh the Registrar, North Park Avenue, Sector- 8, Bhilai, burg (CG) 4. Chhattisgarh Vyavasaiyik Pariksho Mandal, through Controller C/168, Tagore Nagor, Raipur (CG). 5. Lakhmi' Chand Institute of Technology through Registrar Vidya Sthali, Chichirda Road, Village Bodri, District Bilaspur (CG) 6. Principal, Lakhmi Chand Institute of Technology through Registrar Vidya Sthali, Chichirda Road, Village Bodri, District Bilaspur (C<5 * Present: Mr. Sanjay K <Agarwa!, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Pali, Adv. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Adv. Mr. Yashwant S Thakur, Adv. For petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos.6834/08, 6890/08, 7025/08, 7026/08 <& 7027/08. For petitioner in W.P. (C) No.6333/08 For the State of Chhattisgarh in all petitions. For respondent-C.G. Swami Vivekanand Technical University in all petitions. * ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16th February. 2010) Dhirendra Mishpo. J Page 6 of 12 1. These writ petitions are being disposed of by this common' order as the petitioners in these petitions have prayed for quashing of the memo of respondent-C.G. Swomi Vivekanand Technical University (for short 'the University') addressed to the Principals of the Engineering Colleges whereby the University has refused to enroll the petitioner-students admitted in the respective colleges against the management quota seat on the ground that they do not possess prescribed eligibility of 12th Class pass on the last date fixed for admission i.e. 20.9.2008. 2, For the purpose of this order, reference would be made to the facts and documents in W.P. (c) No.6834/08. 3. I.A. No.5 filed on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (c) No.6333/08 is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to comply with the order dated 19.11.2009 and delete the name of petitioner No.4 from the array of petitioners during the course of the day. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that for the acodemic session 2008-09 admissions in the engineering colleges situated in the State of Chhattisgarh were made as per C.G. Engineering Graduation Course Admission Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Admission Rules'). The petitioners appeared in the Pre-Engineering Test examination, 2008 and were provisionally admitted in B.E. 1st Year Course under the management quota in Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Technology, Raipur on the basis of marks obtained by them in Pre-Engineering Test examination and they deposited the first installment of tuition fee on 20.9.2008. At the time they appeared in the Pre- Engineering Test, they had also appeared in the 12th Class examination conducted by respondent No.4. They flpp&ar&d in Cl<s5g 12th guiipl&in&n+ary e^Qinma+ton ag +hey Page 7 of 12 were unsuccessful in the main examination. They passed Class 12th supplementary examination result of which was declared on 24.9.2008. Institution submitted enrolment forms, migration certificates and other documents of all the students including the petitioners in the University along with their memo dated 29.9.2008 (Annexure P-9). However,* the University vide its order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) refused to enroll the petitioners and communicated that they shall not be eligible to appear in the examination on the ground that the result of supplementdry examination was declared after the last date of admission i.e. 20.9.2008, wrongly mentioned as 20.8.2008 in Annexure P- 1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners are pursuing their studies in the respective engineering colleges and have appeared in the examination conducted by the University by virtue of interim order dated 11.12.2008 passed in W.P. (c) No.6333/08 whereby the University was directed to permit the studenfs to appear in the examination of 1st Semester of B.E. Course. Learned counsel further submits that not only the petitioners but other students. who are given provisional admissions and who passed their 12th Class in supplementary examination, were also permitted to appear in the university examination and they are pursuing their studies in the respective colleges. There is no rule and regulation which prescribes that the student seeking admission in the engineering course should pass Class 12th supplementary examination by 20.9.2008 and any student passin9 examination thereafter cannot be permitted to continue in the B.E. Course. The petitioners w^r^ Page 8 of 12 provisionally admitted by the institute before 20.9.200&> subject to their passing Class 12th supplementary examination, and thereafter result of supplementary examination was declared on 24.9.2008 in which they were declared successful. Their duly filled enrollment forms along with requisite fee, migration certificate and other documents have been forwarded by the college to* the University well within the deadline fixed by the University in this regard i.e. 30.9.2008, vide Annexure P-9. Referring to the Ordinance-4 enacted by the University with regard to enrolment of the students and j"heir admission to the course of study under Clause 3 of Section 42 of the C.G. Swami Vivekanand Technical University Act, 2004, it was argued that all the petitioners fulfilled the criteria prescribed in Clause-4 of the above Ordinance-4 for getting enrolled in the University. Further referring to Clause 2.4.1 of the Admission Rules it was argued that the petitioners possess requisite educational qualification for admission in B.E. course. Clause 2.7 of the Admission Rules empowers the Director, Technical Educatiori, to cancel the admission of any student and his decision is to be final in this regard. Referring to memo dated 5.7.2008 of the Director, Technical Education. it was .argued that Para-2 of the aforesai'd memo addressed to the Principals of various techni'cal institutions clearly mentions that the institutions are empowered to give provisional admission to any student and time is to be altowed to such cand|date for removing any deficiency. However, such deficiency is to be removed before the last date fixed for enrolment in the University and if the student is not able to remove Page 9 of 12 that deficiency even till the last date in that case his admission may be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the University vehemently argued that the petitioners were not eligible to be admitted in the B.E. 1st year course as they did not pass Class 12th examination till the last date fixed for admission by the birector, Technical Education i.e. 20.9.2008. Referring to memo (Annexure R2-1) of the Director, Technical Education it was argued that Para-7 of the aforesaid memo clearly enyisages that last date for provisional admission in the colleges, QS fixed by the University, is 20.9.2008 and therefoYe, no admission should be given after that date. The petitioner- students did not appeor in the counseling held on 15.9.2008 as they did not possess requisite qualification of passing Class 12th examination by that date. However, they were provisionally admitted by the respective colleges under the management quota between 15+ <& 19t September. 2008, whereas result of supplementary examination was declared only on 25.9.2008 i.e. after expiry of the last date of admission and therefore. they were not qualified for admission in B.E. course on the last date of admission i.e. 20.9.2008. The University had categorically directed the institutions not to enroll*such students vide its memo dated 25.10.2008. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Indisputably, the petitioners participated in the P.E.T. Examination for seeking admission in the engineering course conducted as per Admission Rules, 2008, as they had appeared in the Class 12th Examination for the relevant year. They were unsuccessful in the main examination of Class 12th whereupon they appeared in.the Page 10 of 12 supplementary examination, result of which was declared on 25.9.2008, and in which they were declared successful. They were provisionally admitted under the management quota by the respective engineering colleges between 15th <& 19th September. 2008, subject to their passing supplementary examination of Class 12th. The Institution forwarded duly filled-in enrolment forms along with necessary fee, migration certificate and other documents to the University before 30.9.2008. However, by the impugned communication of Annexure P-1 the University refused to enroll the petitioners on the ground that^they were not qualified to be admitted in B.E. 1 Year Course till the last date of admission i.e. 20.9.2008. 9. Clause-4 of the Ordinance-04 prescribes the procedure for submission of applications for enrolment of studer^ts in the University, which is reproduced herein below:- "4. The procedure for submission of apptications for enrolment of students of applications for enrolment of students by colleges shatl be as follows, viz i. All application forms from students shall, together with the necessary fees, migration certificate. if necessary, and returns on the prescribed forms reach the University Registrar by 30th September of the academic year in which the students are admitted. ii. On payment of a lote fee of Rupees 50 the Kulapati may, for special peasons to be recorded, permit the enrolment of a student whose application form. enrolment fee or the migration certificate have been submitted after the due date and if the Kulapati is satisfied that the delay in submission i^ not Page 11 of 12 due to any lack of diligence on the part of the student. he may sanction remission of the late fee. iii. In case of all students who apply for enrolment the Principal of the college shall send tq the University a general certificate to the effect that he has inspected the certificate issued by the appropriate authorities and satisfied himself that in each case the student concerned has passed the examination which under the rules of the University entitles him to join the course to which he has been admitted in the college." 10. From the above procedure it is evident that application for enrolment from the students with necessary fee <& migration certificate in a prescribed form should reach the University by 30.9.2008 of the academic year in which students are admitted. It also transpires th<it in appropriate cases Kulpati may. for special reasons, permit the students to submit the application for enrolment with a delay. 11. Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for *the University, could not bring to our notice any provision under the Statute or Ordinance of the University which prescribes any deadline for passing the qualifying examination for seeking admission in the engineering course. 4, 12. So far as the reference to Para-7 of memo (Annexure R2-1 of W.P. (C) No.6333/08) of the Director, Technical Education that last date for admission in engineering course is fixed as 20.9.2008 by the University is concerned. in the instant case also the petitioners were .i Page 12 of 12 given provisional admission between 15+ <& 19+ September, 2008. Mr. Thakur did not dispute that the birector, Technical Education is the final authority in the matter of cancellation of irregular admission as provided in Clause 2.7 of the Admissions Rules. In the instant case, the students were provisionally admitted by the respective engineering colleges before 20.9.2008/ the same was never questioned or cancelled by the birector, Technical Education, and therefore, in our considered opinion the respondent University wask not justified in refusing to enroll the petitioner-students on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification of passing 12th Class examination on the last date of admission i.e. 20.9.2008. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are atlowed, the order of Annexure P-1 dated 12.11.2008 passed by the University is hereby quashed and the respondent University is directed to consider the applications for enrolment of the petitioner-students and decide the same afresh in the light of observations made in this order. No order as to costs. roshan Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^,