C.W.P. No.6434 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6434 of 2010 Date of Decision: 03.08.2010. Dhanwati Devi & others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. S.K.Monga, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.K.S.Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Anurag Goel, Advocate for respondent No.3. Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5. ***** PERMOD KOHLI, J. Respondent No.5 is a college established by respondent No.4- Society. The college has got the recognition for B.P.Ed. and C.P.Ed. courses and also affiliation with the respondent No.3-University for the said courses during the Session 2009-10. It appears that a large number of colleges imparting C.P.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses were allocated students on the basis of common admission conducted by the respondent-University during the Session 2009-10. After the completion of the counselling, a large number of seats in various colleges in the State of Haryana remained vacant. The respondent No.4-Society along with some others approached C.W.P. No.6434 of 2010 -2- this Court through the medium of C.W.P. No.19231 of 2009 seeking a direction for filling up the unfilled seats for B.P.Ed. and C.P.Ed. courses. This writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 15th January, 2010 and the petitioners were permitted to make admissions against the vacant/unfilled seats for B.P.Ed. and C.P.Ed. courses. A detailed procedure was prescribed by this Court with the following directions:- "i) The petitioners will issue separate Public Notices notifying unfilled seats available with them for selection through the counselling. The notice shall be published in two English national newspaper and two others in Vernacular (one Hindi and one Punjabi) having wide circulation on 19.1.2010 and 20.1.2010. Last date for receipt of applications shall be 22.1.2010. The counselling will be held from 23.1.2010 to 24.1.2010. List of the candidates who were found eligible for the counselling shall be submitted to the University on 25.1.2010. The University shall conduct Physical Efficiency Test of such students in the University Campus on 27th and 28th of January, 2010 which fact shall be notified by the petitioners in the public notice itself. Such of the students who are found fit and eligible in the Physical Efficiency Test by the University shall be admitted to the respective Colleges between 29th and 30th of January, 2010. The admissions will be made on the basis of merit in the qualifying examinations. The minimum eligibility criterion as notified in the Prospectus shall be strictly adhered to and there shall be no relaxation of any kind in the minimum eligibility criterion. It is made clear that if subsequently at any stage, it is found that students have been admitted in violation of the eligibility criterion, not only the admission of the students C.W.P. No.6434 of 2010 -3- shall be liable to be cancelled and quashed, by the University but the petitioner-institutions shall also be liable to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- per student admitted in violation of the norms of the University. ii) After 30.1.2010, no students, irrespective of the availability of the seats in any of the affiliated colleges, shall be admitted. Iii) The petitioner-institutions will make admissions on the basis of inter-se merit of the applicants who may apply and seek admission pursuant to the Public Notice issued by the petitioners. The Colleges will not charge any extra fee other than the one prescribed by the University/Government. iv) The fee shall be deposited by the candidates in accordance with the norms/procedure already prescribed by the respondent-University/Government. v) It will also be notified in the Public Notice that the students who will be granted admission will deposit the fee before or on 30.1.2010 in accordance with the norms/procedure prescribed by the respondent-University/Government in this regard. vi) The Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak- respondent No.3 will nominate one representative for each counselling to be conducted by the petitioner Colleges affiliated to the concerned University. Such nomination shall be made before the date notified hereinabove for counselling/admission by the colleges. If the respondent-University fails to nominate its representative or if the nominated representative fails to approach of Colleges concerned, the petitioners/Colleges may C.W.P. No.6434 of 2010 -4- proceed to hold counselling/admission in absence of such representative with prior intimation to the respondent-University in this regard. vii) All the Colleges after making admissions will submit a list of admitted candidates along with their details and merit position to the Respondent-University, within a period of one week from the date of such admissions along with proof of payment of fee and the respondent-University shall have the right to conduct scrutiny in accordance with the norms/procedure laid down by it. viii) The petitioners shall hold extra classes to complete 180 days requirement of the University, without charging any extra amount from the students and comply with the other norms for examination for the course. It shall be open to the University to conduct an inspection regarding the extra classes to be conducted by the petitioners-institutions. The University shall also issue appropriate directions in this regard.” In response to the aforesaid directions, the colleges issued their separate advertisements and made admissions accordingly. However, the dispute in the present petition relates to the admission made by respondent No.5-College to B.P.Ed. and C.P.Ed. courses including those of the petitioners herein. The petitioners were admitted by respondent No.5- College to B.P.Ed. and C.P.Ed. courses but their admissions have been cancelled by the University vide the impugned order dated 12th March, 2010 (Annexure P-13) on the ground of their ineligibility and beyond the merit list supplied by the Department of the Physical Education of the respondent No.3-University. From the impugned order (Annexure P-13), it appears that admission of as many as 30 candidates for C.P.Ed. course C.W.P. No.6434 of 2010 -5- and 16 candidates for B.P.Ed. course has been cancelled by the University. It is this order, which has been challenged in the present writ petition. The main ground urged in the writ petition is that petitioners were admitted by the respondent No.5-College pursuant to the direction of this Court vide the judgment dated 15th January, 2010 (Annexure P-1). It is, however, admitted case of the petitioners that they were not subjected to the Physical Efficiency Test by the University on the dates specified. It is stated that on the refusal of the University to conduct Physical Efficiency Test for the petitioners, they approached the University but without any response. It is further alleged that on failure of the University to conduct the Physical Efficiency Test, the college itself constituted a Committee of the Experts in the field of Physical Education and the said committee conducted the physical efficiency test of the petitioners. On being found fit by the Committee of the Experts, the petitioners were admitted to the course. The college, in its reply to the writ petition, has supported the plea of the petitioners and also pleaded that the college had no option but to admit the petitioners by conducting a physical efficiency test on its own in view of the failure of the University to conduct such a test. It is pertinent to note that in Para 9 of the reply, the college has admitted that some of the students were allowed to appear in the physical efficiency test conducted by the University on 27th & 28th January, 2010 but petitioners were not permitted. Respondent No.3-University in its detailed reply seriously contested the contentions of the petitioners as also the college. At the first place, it is mentioned that under the directions of this Court, a College was required to issue advertisement in two English national newspapers and C.W.P. No.6434 of 2010 -6- two others in Vernacular (one Hindi and one Punjabi) newspapers whereas the college issued advertisement only in one newspaper. According to the University, the University appointed its nominee for the counselling, which was to be conducted by the college on 23rd January, 2010 in the presence of such nominee. The nominee went to the College but no counselling could be conducted as neither the Principal of the College nor the candidates were present. It is further stated that counselling was, however, conducted on 24th January, 2010 for both the courses in the presence of the Principal of the College. It is stated that for B.P.Ed. Course, 9 candidates appeared before the Admission Committee out of which, 5 were eligible for the Physical Efficiency Test. The Committee, however, decided to scrutinize the documents of the candidates, who were not physically present and after scrutiny of the documents, 21 candidates were found eligible for physical efficiency test. Similarly for C.P.Ed. Course, only 9 candidates appeared before the Admission Committee and 6 of them were found eligible. For this course as well, the documents of other candidates, who were not physically present were scrutinized and 12 more candidates were found eligible for physical efficiency test. The University has placed on record a report by its nominee as Annexure R3/1 (Colly). As per this report, 18 candidates were eligible for C.P.Ed. Course and 21 candidates for B.P.Ed. Course. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the University permitted those candidates to be admitted in the two courses. It is, however, stated that petitioners No.3 to 9 were not found eligible for want of Sports participation documents on the day of physical efficiency test and they were not allowed to participate in the test. Similarly, petitioners No.1 & 2, though found eligible in counselling, did not turn up for physical efficiency test on 27 & 28th January, 2010. It is stated that after the physical efficiency test, 13 candidates were C.W.P. No.6434 of 2010 -7- recommended for admission to B.P.Ed. Course and 19 for C.P.Ed. Course subject to verification of their Sports documents. According to the University, the college was never permitted to conduct physical efficiency test at its own level and any such test conducted by the college is in violation of the Court directions and any candidate admitted to any of the course without the physical test having been conducted by the University is ineligible and thus all such candidates who were found ineligible having been admitted to the course without adopting the prescribed procedure and in violation of the guidelines issued by this Court, their admissions were cancelled vide the impugned order (Annexure P-13). It is admitted case of the petitioners that they were admitted to the course allegedly on the basis of Physical Efficiency Test conducted by the college itself and not by the University. Even the college admitted that physical efficiency test on some of the candidates was conducted by the University and those candidates were admitted to the course. One fails to understand that if the University has conducted the physical efficiency test for some of the students, why the petitioners should have been ignored. There was no personal bias against the petitioners, nor it is the case of the petitioners or the college that the University was biased against the college in any manner. It is common case of the parties that the admissions were possible only on account of the judgment of this Court dated 15th January, 2010, I am unable to convince myself that the University could have dared to refuse to conduct physical efficiency test of the petitioners in presence of clear and categorical directions of this Court in CWP No.19231 of 2009. Such a complaint is only from one college i.e. respondent No.5 whereas in the aforesaid writ petition, a number of other colleges were the petitioners and they have also conducted the tests and students admitted by them in accordance with the directions of this Court. Learned counsel appearing for C.W.P. No.6434 of 2010 -8- the petitioners has tried to take refuge under the directions contained in Para VI of the order dated 15th January, 2010. In the said para, quoted hereinabove, it is provided that the University will nominate one representative for each counselling and such nomination shall be made before the date notified for the counselling. It is further mentioned in the said direction that if the petitioner fails to nominate representative or if the nominated representative fails to approach the college concerned, the college may proceed to hold counselling to make admissions in absence of such representative with prior intimation to the respondent-University. Based upon the aforesaid directions, it is argued that since the University failed to conduct the physical efficiency test, the college made admissions at its own level. This argument is totally misconceived and contrary to the directions of this Court. It is common case of the parties that counselling was conducted in presence of the nominee of the University. Under the directions of the Court, the students were to appear before the University and the physical efficiency test was to be conducted in the University Campus on 27th & 28th January, 2010. This fact was to be mentioned in the advertisement notice itself. In view of the clear admission of the respondent-College that physical efficiency test of some of the students was conducted on 27th & 28th January, 2010. It does not now seem to be factually correct that the petitioners were refused physical efficiency test though they were found eligible. The categorical stand of the respondent- University is that the list of the eligible candidates on the basis of the documents for physical efficiency test was prepared by the Committee including the nominee of the university on the last date of counselling and thus there is no question of refusing the physical efficiency test of such candidates later on. The allegations have been made simply to overcome the illegal admissions made by the college for the sake of monetary C.W.P. No.6434 of 2010 -9- benefits. It is relevant to note that there are clear and categorical directions contained in order dated 15th January, 2010 that if subsequently at any stage, it is found that students have been admitted in violation of the eligibility criteria, not only the admissions of the students shall be liable to be cancelled and quashed by the University but the Institution shall also be liable to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- per student admitted in violation of the norms of the University. From the detailed discussions made hereinabove, it is established on record that petitioners' admissions are de-hors the directions of this Court. Petitioners were admitted in gross contravention of the directions of this Court and the procedure prescribed. Their admission has been rightly cancelled by the University vide the impugned order (Annexure P-13). The respondent No.4-College is thus liable to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- per petitioner to the respondent No.3-University. The University is at liberty to recover this amount from the respondents No.4 & 5 after affording them an opportunity of being heard. In so far the impugned order is concerned, no infirmity, this petition is liable to be dismissed. I order accordingly. It is, however, made clear that though the petitioners are the beneficiaries of illegal admissions but since the admissions have been cancelled, the respondent No.5-College shall refund entire fee received from the petitioners within a period of one month against proper receipts. 03.08.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE NOTE: Whether to be referred to Reporter or not? Yes/No