IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.366/2003 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 415/2003 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.529/2003 Writ Petition No.366/2003 Miss Sharvaree P. Naik, of major age, Indian National, resident of Shantinagar, Ponda, Goa. .... Petitioner. V/s. (1) The Goa University, through its Registrar, having office at Bambolim, sub-post office Goa University, Goa 403 206. (2) State of Goa, through Director of Higher Education Having office at Directorate of Education, Panaji, Goa. (3) Miss Poonam J. Deshprabhu; (4) Miss Pranali M. Bodke; (5) Master Einencio J. Coutinho; All presently students of Microbiology, to be served through Registrar, Goa University) 6. Braganza Ramsey, 7. Sardessai Jayashree, 8. Shirodkar Swetha, 9. Correia Shirley M., 10. Parab Kavita C., 11. Rodrigues Brenda F., 12. Mascarenhas Verity P. 13. Andrade Cassius A., 14. Jose Teresa, - 2 - 15. Samuel Anitha, 16. Chodankar Sarita S., 17. Beig Umme Amara, 18. Dessai Mayura Madhav, 19. Dessai Vilas Shivaji, All through the Registrar, Goa University, Taleigaon Plateau, Bambolim, Goa. ..... Respondents. Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. A.A. Agni, Advocate for respondents No.1. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. V.K. Bodke, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. S.G. Dessai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.R. Tamba, Advocate for respondent No.9. Writ Petition No.415/2003 Miss Brenda Rodrigues, Resident of Julieta Apartments, Flat No.B-3, Near Cine Aaisha, Ponda, Goa. ..... Petitioner. V/s (1) The Goa University, through its Registrar, having office at Bambolim, Ilhas, Goa 403 206, (2) Miss Shaarvaree P. Naik, Major of age, resident of Shantinagar, Ponda, Goa. (3) Vilas Shivaji Desai, Resident of Sapna P. Residency, Ponda, Goa. (4) Mayura Madhav Desai, (address not known) - 3 - (5) Shirodkar Swetha Suresh, House No.MA 1/6, Gausawaddo, Mapusa, Goa 403 507. (6) Conera Shirley M., R/o. House No.741, Satapario, Moira, Bardez, Goa 403 507, (7) Parab Kavita C., Tambalwada - Warkhand, Pernem, Goa 403 512. ..... Respondents. A N D Miss Punam N. Sawant, R/o. A/2, Dikarpali Post, Navelim, Salcete, Goa. ...... Intervenor. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate deform the petitioner. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General on Notice. Mrs. A.A. Agni, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. S.G.Dessai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.R. Tamba, Advocate for respondent No.6. Writ Petition No.529/2003 Miss Shirley M. Correia, R/o. House No.741, Sataporio, Moira, Bardez, Goa. ..... ..... ..... Petitioner. V/s. 1. The Goa University, through its Registrar, having its office at Bambolim, Ilhas, Goa 403 206. 2. Miss Branda Rodrigues, r/o. Julieta Apartments, Flat No.B-3, near Cine Aaisha, Ponda, Goa. 3. Miss Shaarvares P. Naik, major of age, - 4 - R/o. Shantinagar, Ponda, Goa. 4. Shri Vilas Shivaji Dessai, r/o. Sapna P. Residency, Ponda, Goa. 5. Miss Mayura Madhav Dessai, C/o. Madhav Dessai, Kamat Classic, Tonca, Miramar, Goa. 6. Shri Rohan S. Fernandes, 7. Shri Einencio J. Coutinho, 8. Ms. Pranali M. Bodke, 9. Ms. Poonam J. Deshpande, 10. Shri Ramsey Braganza, 11. Ms. Jayashree Sardesai, 12. Ms. Swetha Shirodkar, All students of Goa University, to be served through Registrar, Goa University. ..... Respondents. Mr. S.G. Dessai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.R. Tamba, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General on Notice. Mrs. A.A. Agni, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. V.K. Bodke, Advocate for respondent No.8. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate for respondent No.9. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & P.V. HARDAS, JJ. Date of reserving the Judgment : December 15, 2003. Date of pronouncing the Judgment : December 17, 2003. - 5 - J U D G M E N T : (Per KHANWILKAR, J). All the three petitions can be disposed of by this common Judgment. The challenge in these petitions is essentially to the admission process in respect of Post Graduate Course (M.Sc. Microbiology) for Academic year 2003-2004. The eligibility criteria for admission to the said Course is specified in Clause 2.1 of the Post Graduate Studies and Research Programs Hand Book 2003-2004 issued by the University. (hereinafter, referred to as the "Hand Book"). The handbook deals with, inter alia, the Rules and Regulations for admission to the Post Graduate Courses conducted by the Goa University (hereinafter, referred to as "the University"). It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the respective petition, as well as the private respondents were eligible for admission to Post Graduate Course, M.Sc. Microbiology. Each of them had appeared for the Entrance Test held by the University on June 20, 2003, results whereof were declared on June 26, 2003 and the Merit List of candidates for admission to M.Sc. (I) Microbiology (2003) approved by the Departmental Council of Microbiology, was displayed. The purported basis on which merit list has to be drawn, is spelt out from Clause 2.5 of the Hand Book, the same read thus : - 6 - "2.5 2.5 2.5 ENTRANCE TEST AND MERIT LIST ENTRANCE TEST AND MERIT LIST ENTRANCE TEST AND MERIT LIST All admissions will be done strictly on the basis of merit. For this purpose separate merit lists based on the aggregate marks at the qualifying examination of Goa University will be prepared in respect of (i) general candidates including SC. ST and OBC candidates respectively, (ii) SC.ST and OBC candidates respectively who do not get admission on the basis of the merit list of general category candidates. The candidates passing the qualifying examination with one major subject for which admission is sought will be placed above the candidates passing the qualifying examination with two major subjects in the merit list subject, however, on the condition that the candidates securing first class, and those securing second class will be placed above the candidates securing pass class. The eligibility criteria laid down hereinafter will be strictly adhered to for admission. Candidates passing the qualifying examination in more than one attempt will be deemed eligible for admission, but for the purpose of equating their performance with that of the candidates passing the examination at the first attempt, the percentage of aggregate marks obtained by them shall be deemed to be less by 3 % for every subsequent attempt than the actual percentage of marks obtained by them at the aggregate in the qualifying examination. A merit list based on the aggregate marks will be prepared and displayed on the notice board of the respective departments in respect of applications received upto the prescribed closing date i.e. 18th June, 2002. Seats will be allotted strictly on the basis of this merit list. There will also be entrance tests for candidates seeking admission for MA (Int. Studies) which they have to qualify for getting admitted. Students Students Students seeking admission in courses of seeking admission in courses of seeking admission in courses of faculties faculties faculties of Life sciences and environment, of Life sciences and environment, of Life sciences and environment, Natural Natural Natural sciences and Commerce will have to sciences and Commerce will have to sciences and Commerce will have to qualify qualify qualify for admission through an entrance for admission through an entrance for admission through an entrance - 7 - test. test. test. Also, candidates from outside Goa Also, candidates from outside Goa Also, candidates from outside Goa University University University seeking admission to a PG Course seeking admission to a PG Course seeking admission to a PG Course in in in any Faculty have to appear for an any Faculty have to appear for an any Faculty have to appear for an entrance entrance entrance Examination and quality for Examination and quality for Examination and quality for admission. admission. admission. The test will be of one and half hours duration and will be based on the syllabus of Graduation level. The test shall be of 100 marks and can have a paper of entirely objective type questions. A merit list shall be prepared based on the aggregate marks obtained at TY examination (50 % weightage) and the entrance test (50 % weightage). The test would be conducted by the respective departments. A fee of Rs.250/- will be charged per student for appearance at each entrance test." The merit list (hereinafter referred to as the notified merit list) displayed on the Notice Board of the concerned Department of the University was as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------- A B C D E F G H --------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Seat Name. Aggre- Ave- Misc. No. No. gate % ET % rage U % C ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 25 De Souza Trelita 78.00 61.00 69.50 6 76.666 D 2. 17 De Souza Christina 70.71 55.00 62.86 6 68.333 D 3. 49 Gaitonde Sapna S. 76.57 49.00 62.79 6 75.166 D 4. 20 Shetgaonkar Rupali S. 70.43 52.00 61.22 6 68.833 D 5. 47 Subhaji Meghraj 66.86 52.00 59.43 6 65.166 F 6. 08 Fernandes Rohan S. 71.29 47.00 59.15 6 68.50 D 7. 11 Coutinho Einencio J. 74.86 49.00 57.43 6 73.166 D 8. 32 Bodke Pranali M. 60.86 49.00 54.93 6 57.333 F 9. 37 Deshprabhu Poonam J. 66.43 43.00 54.72 6 63.666 F 10. 06 Braganza Ramsey 65.14 44.00 54.57 6 62.166 F 11. 39 Sardesai Jayshree 68.57 40.00 54.29 6 66.833 F 12. 30 Shirodkar Swetha 60.14 46.00 53.07 6 56.50 F 13. 31 Correia Shirley M. 65.43 40.00 52.72 6 62.333 F 14. 36 Parab Kavita C. 70.00 35.00 52.50 6 68.166 D 15. 51 Rodrigues Branda F. 63.71 40.00 51.86 6 60.333 F - 8 - 16. 50 Mascarenhas Verity P. 61.14 41.00 51.07 6 58.5 F 17. 07 Andrade Cassius A. 60.00 42.00 51.00 6 55.833 F 18. 48 Jose Teresa 63.14 38.00 50.57 6 59.666 F 19. 46 Samuel Anitha 62.86 38.00 50.43 6 59.833 F 20. 10 Chodankar Sarita S. 61.86 36.00 48.93 6 57.666 F 21. 24 Beig Umme Amara 67.71 30.00 48.86 6 65.333 F 22. 01 Desai Mayura Madhav 71.57 47.00 59.29 3 68.33 F 23. 42 Desai Vilas Shivaji. 66.86 50.00 58.43 3 69.333 F 24. 21 Naik Sharvaree P. 72.00 44.00 58.00 3 72.666 D 25. 15 Raiker Rajlaxmi D. 72.43 39.00 55.72 3 70.00 D 26. 14 Sawant Punam A. 68.71 41.00 54.86 3 67.333 F 27. 12 Jadhav Sangeeta S. 65.71 43.00 54.36 3 65.00 F 28. 34 Naik Deepa S. 74.43 31.00 52.72 3 72.666 D 29. 57 Patil Pradnya 65.43 37.00 51.22 3 62.666 F 30. 33 Chodnekar Gandhali A. 70.00 32.00 51.00 3 69.666 D 31. 40 Kamat Sanjyot G. 65.86 35.00 50.43 3 60.666 F 32. 45 Deshprabhu Kirti S. 67.71 33.00 50.36 3 68.333 F 33. 02 P.Suja Jayan 71.71 28.00 49.86 3 68.33 D 35. 03 Metri Madhuri Mohan 67.43 30.00 48.72 3 60.66 F 36. 16 Mulvi Praiya G. 64.71 30.00 47.36 3 62.00 F 37. 09 Silveira Bozena A. 61.29 33.00 47.15 3 61.333 F 38. 35 Gawas Samir 62.29 30.00 46.15 3 59.333 F 39. 43 Verlekar Rupali R. 57.14 41.00 49.07 6 53.50 S 40. 62 Naruenkar Kalakar 54.14 40.00 47.07 6 50.5 S 41. 44 Naik Yogita 57.86 36.00 46.93 6 54.666 S 42. 18 Nizari Asmita M. 58.86 38.00 48.43 3 53.00 S 43. 19 Borkar Shruti V. 57.00 39.00 48.00 3 57.333 S 44. 41 Nikhil Kirti Z. 55.71 35.00 45.36 3 51.333 S 45. 04 Ramadevi Ramaswamy 55.71 34.00 44.86 3 52.333 S 46. 23 Shetkar Sulaksha M. 55.86 33.00 44.43 3 53.00 S 47. 38 Shetgaonkar Bhakti D. 57.14 30.00 43.57 3 53.666 S 48. 60 Haldankar Nilesh S. 55.29 29.00 42.15 3 43.00 S _____________________________________________________________ On the basis of this list, admission to the General Category was completed by July 10, 2003, which was the last date for admission. Although, originally only nine seats were earmarked for General Category Candidates, however, two seats from the Reserved Category were added as no candidate from Reserved Category was available. Accordingly, first eleven students in order of Merit List referred to above, came to be admitted. This process was challenged by the Petitioner in - 9 - Writ Pet. No.366/2003 before this Court on 28.7.2003. The substance of the grievance made in this petition was that the basis on which the merit list has been prepared and displayed by the University was inappropriate as it was not in conformity with the requirements of Clause 2.5 reproduced above. According to this petitioner, although she had secured aggregate 72 % marks at the qualifying examination and average 58 % marks, she was wrongly placed at serial No.24 instead of serial No.9, in order of merit in terms of Clause 2.5 referred to above. This Writ Petition came up for admission on 29/7/2003, but was adjourned to the next date. In view of the arguments canvassed, and perhaps realising the mistake in preparation of the Merit List, on the next date of hearing i.e. 30.7.2003, statement was made on behalf of the University before the Court that the said petitioner has been granted admission. In the light of that statement, the said petition came to be disposed of, without examining the questions raised therein. Consequent thereto, the said Writ Petitioner (In Writ Petition No. 366/2003) was admitted to M.Sc. Microbiology Course on 31.7.2003 and she started attending her classes. 2. It is relevant to mention that the University instead of admitting only the petitioner in W.P. No.366/2003 who was at sr. No.24 of the Merit List, took a conscious decision at the highest level upto the Vice-Chancellor (as - 10 - was noticed from the office record produced before us), to create three supernumerary seats for the said Course (M.Sc. Microbiology) only for the present academic year, as a special case. Out of those seats, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.366/2003 was given admission against one seat and other two seats were offered to the students at Sr. Nos. 22 and 23 of the notified Merit List. 3. In view of this development, student at sr. No.15 in the notified merit list approached this Court by way of writ petition No.415 of 2003. The main grievance in this petition is that the Writ Petitioner was at Sr. No.15 of the notified Merit List, whereas, the University created three supernumerary seats for the said course and admitted students who were at lower rank at sr. No.22, 23 and 24 respectively against those seats. According to the petitioner, this was done in clandestine manner without issuing any notification or clarification or giving option to the students who were higher in order of merit than the students at sr. Nos.22, 23, and 24 in the notified merit list. This writ petition was resisted by the University. The justification offered by the University was that, having realised the mistake, the University thought it appropriate to not only accommodate petitioner in W.P. No.366/2003 but also two other students who deserved admission on the same analogy, but were left out due to the faulty merit list prepared and displayed by the - 11 - Department. The petitioner in W.P. No.415/2003, challenged the admission granted to students at sr. Nos.22, 23 and 24 respectively in the notified merit list. During the course of hearing of the said writ petition on October 8, 2003, it however, transpired that out of the three supernumerary seats created and offered to students at sr. Nos. 22, 23 and 24 respectively, only two had joined the course and one seat was still lying vacant for more than three months as student at sr. No.22 did not avail the offer for admission. This Court in the peculiar circumstances, instead of examining the wider issues raised in the writ petition, directed the University to allocate the vacant seat to the Writ Petitioner in W.P.415/2003 for academic year 2003-2004. Even while disposing of this writ petition, this Court did not go into the correctness of the stand taken by the University about the interpretation now given by the University to the relevant clause 2.5, after having already prepared the merit list. In terms of the above order, the student at sr. No.15 of the notified merit list also secured admission. 4. The matter did not end at that. Inasmuch as, third petition came to be filed by student at sr. No.13 of the notified Merit List displayed by the University, referred to above. Serious grievance has been made in this petition that, if at all, she was entitled for being admitted to the vacant seat in place of student at sr. No.15 or for that - 12 - matter at sr. Nos.22, 23 and 24. It was contended that students lower in merit have been preferred ignoring her legitimate claim, as she was at Sr. No.13. In this petition, it is contended that it was not open to the University to change the order of merit, once it was so displayed. Moreover, if the University chose to create three supernumerary seats, admission to those seats should have been made strictly on the basis of merit list already notified. Moreover, the justification now putforth by the University was untenable. The University resisted this writ petition by filing detailed affidavit. Besides, it also chose to file two separate review petitions, praying for recall of the decisions already given by this Court in W.P. Nos. 366/03 and 415/2003 respectively. Those review petitions, having regard to the nature of controversy involved were allowed by this Court vide order dated December 1, 2003. Even though this Court recalled the order already passed in the earlier two petitions, made it clear that the admissions already granted by the University shall remain undisturbed but will be subject to the outcome of all the three writ petitions before this Court. In other words, earlier two writ petitions were restored and were directed to be heard along with the third writ petition filed by student at Sr. No.13 in the notified merit list. 5. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are now - 13 - being heard together. When the matters were called out for hearing on December 9, 2003 Mr. Sonak appearing for Writ Petitioner in W.P. 366/2003 informed us that the said petitioner was not interested to pursue her petition as well as the course to which she was already admitted in July, 2003 because of the humiliation suffered by her at the hands of the teaching staff and her classmates after she was given admission. Letter addressed by the said Petitioner to Mr. Sonak, although it is privileged communication, was placed before us which broadly mentions the compelling circumstances under which she has taken such a drastic decision. The said letter reads thus : "From Sharvaree P. Naik Shantinagar Ponda Goa To Advocate Mahesh Sonak Panaji Goa. Sub:- Admission for M.Sc. Microbiology Course-Goa University. Dear Sir, I the undersigned Miss Sharvaree P. Naik wish to thank you whole heatedly for the efforts put by you and your staff for making my admission possible for M.Sc. Microbiology Course for the year 2003. Sir, I was given admission on 30th July 2003 and I joined the regular classes from 31st July 2003. Since then I was going under humiliation from few of our teaching staff and also from my classmates almost everyday and it was still going on and I tried my level best to sustain this in the hope that circumstances will change with the time. - 14 - But when Miss Branda Rodrigues’ petition was admitted in the high court and she was allotted the third seat; the circumstances were made still more difficult for me. During all these days I never told about all this to my parents. Atlast when I narrated all this to my parents and elders. They jointly took a decision not to continue with the course which I agreed too. Sir, from 4th November I have stopped attending the classes. Sir presently I have joined nearby Pre-Primary School as a teacher. Sir, I am very sorry that I could not convey all this thing to you before taking above decision. I once again thank you for the help granted to me. Thanking you Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Sharvaree P. Naik) Date :- 3.12.2003." On perusing the said letter, we requested Mr. Sonak to ask the Writ Petitioner to remain present in Court at 2.30 p.m. so as to seek further details from her. Besides we requested the learned Advocate General to examine the matter and make his submissions in that behalf. At 2.30 p.m. when the matter was called out after the lunch break, Mr. Sonak informed us that the petitioner could not be contacted because she had gone to attend some function, but he assured that on the next day, the presence of petitioner will be secured. On the other hand, learned Advocate General having examined the matter, and in view of the disturbing state of affairs brought to our notice, reported the same to the Governor and Chancellor who, in turn, directed the Vice- Chancellor of University to inquire into the matter and - 15 - submit report to him. We requested the Advocate General to cause to informally record the statement of the Writ Petitioner in W.P. 366/2003. Pursuant to our oral direction, statement of the said Writ Petitioner has been recorded by Police Inspector CID/CB, on the same evening of 9th December, 2003. The matter was taken on 10th of December, for further hearing when the Learned Advocate General produced copy of the said statement of the petitioner Ms. S. P. Naik as recorded on 9.12.2003. We will not elaborate on the contents of this statement. Suffice it to mention that graphic description has been given as to how the said petitioner has allegedly been victimized by the teaching staff and other students. Having regard to the seriousness of the matter we thought it appropriate that the Vice-Chancellor of the University to personally look into the matter and offer solution to salvage the situation. We also requested Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel for University to inform the persons named in the statement so recorded, to remain present in Court. Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor of the University as well as some of the named persons appeared before us on 12.12.2003. On that day, the Vice-Chancellor expressed his concern about the unfortunate developments taking place and assured that whatever was necessary as per law will be done. He informed us that the apex body of the University would meet and discuss the matter. The persons who were named in the statement also appeared before us. - 16 - They were told that the allegations made against them were quite serious and to obviate any precipitative action, they should not only observe restraint, but also ensure that such things were not repeated in future so as to victimise the students who had justly succeeded before the Court of law and have secured admission belatedly. Hearing of the matter was deferred till 15th of December, as we were informed that the proposed meeting of the Executive Council was already convened. 6. Accordingly, the matter was taken up on 15th December, at 2.30 p.m. Learned Counsel for the University placed before us contents of the resolution passed by the Apex Body of appointing Dr. U.G. Nachinolkar, Ex-Dean, Faculty of Medicine and Ex-Member of Executive Council to inquire into all aspects of the alleged harassment of Ms. S. Naik, a student of Microbiology of the Faculty Members of the department as made in her statement and to submit findings in that behalf to Goa University within three weeks. Mrs. Agni also placed before us the manner in which the present crisis relating to admission to the said Course arisen out of the faulty merit list prepared by the Department can be resolved. According to her, the left out students at sr. Nos. 26 and 28 were interested in getting admission, whereas, students at sr. Nos.22, 25, 27 and 12 were not interested in taking admission and no information could be obtained in respect of - 17 - student at sr. No.14. This submission was made on instructions