@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V. Dhanapalan, J.@mdashThe petitioner in W.P. No. 30834 of 2005 studied in Government Higher Secondary School, Kulasekharam and
passed in the Higher Secondary examination held in March 1997. She joined the course of D.M.L.T. (Diploma in Medical Lab Technician) in
Rose Para Medical Institute in July 1997 and studied for three months. Since she was unable to pay the fees for the course due to her poor
financial position, she discontinued the course. Her father has been suffering from wheezing and is having ulcer problem. Her elder brother is a
stone-cutter in a quarry in Kanyakumari District. Her mother was a T.B. patient and she died on 31.12.1996 as her father was unable to give her
proper medical treatment in view of his limited resources. She was forced to seek employment to support her father, on a monthly salary of Rs.
500/- as Assistant in a honey purification center at Attoor. She worked there for eight months and then, in a hospital, to supplement her family
income.
2. Under these circumstances, she applied for B.Sc. (Maths) in Madurai Kamaraj University through Correspondence Course. She completed the
first year and she could not pay the fees and therefore, she had to discontinue the course. At that time, her younger brother was studying B.Sc.
(Maths) in Scott Christian College, Nagercoil. As she had to meet the educational. expenses of her younger brother, she sacrificed her studies by
discontinuing her course of B.Sc. (Maths). Later, she joined B.A. (History) in Annamalai University, Distance Education Centre, in August 2002.
She suffered for her very livelihood but still, she managed to write her second year B.A. (History) examination. She had passed her first year
examination and in the second year, she had passed all the subjects except but one. The first and second year marks have been furnished by
Annamalai University. Thereafter, she wrote the final year examination held in May 2005 along with one arrear paper pertaining to the second
year. Thus, she has completed her B.A. (History) course in Annamalai University.
3. The petitioner further submits that she had applied for B.L. (3 year course) entrance examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar
Law University and in the Prospectus, it has been stated that those who have appeared for the final year examination for the degree course in the
year 2005 and awaiting results, may also apply for the B.L. degree course. She had received the Hall Ticket bearing No. 350812 from the third
respondent. herein and had written the entrance examination at the Sathakkathulla Appa College in Tirunelveli on 114.08.2005. The results were
published on 25th August 2005. She secured 45,750% at the Entrance examination. Later on, she had been asked to come for counseling and the
counseling letter was sent to her on 05.09.2005 for the O.C. (open competition) category to be held on 19.09.2005, the first day of counseling for
B.L. (3 years) course, as she secured high marks and her overall rank is 139 in O.C. In view of this ranking position, she was sure to get
admission in the Government Law College, Tirunelveli. She appeared for counseling on 19.09.2005 in time. She was called and she was furnished
with the form for counseling and was asked to fill up the form and she duly filled up the form and was awaiting her turn to come. She was called for
verification of the original documents and she produced the following documents.
Mark sheets for the first and second year of B.A. (History) course
Community Certificate
Form of counseling session
Mark sheet of entrance test and counseling intimation.
Identity card and final year - hall ticket issued by Annamalai University
Two passport size photographs
4. She informed the counseling authorities that she had already applied for the Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate to Annamalai University
and had paid Rs. l00/- by way of Demand Draft No. 566666 dated 14.09.2005. She also told them that the results have not yet been published
and undertook to produce the final year mark sheet and also the provisional certificate along with Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate
immediately on receipt and requested them to admit her by issuing her Admission Letter. In this regard, the counseling authorities directed her to
contact the Registrar, the third respondent herein, and get a letter from him with regard to issuance of Admission Letter. Accordingly, she met the
Registrar and made a representation stating that she would furnish the aforesaid original documents immediately on receipt and that the results
would foe published any time and requested him to admit her in the Government Law College, Tirunelveli and also give her a reasonable time
enabling her to produce the required Certificates but her request was turned down by the third respondent.
5. Aggrieved by the action of the third respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and this Court was pleased to admit the writ petition and
passed an interim order on 27.09.2005 to reserve one seat for the petitioner to Government Law College, Tirunvelveli. Accordingly, the interim
direction was communicated to the respondent and it is informed by the counsel for the respondents that one seat is reserved for the petitioner.
6. On 19.10.2005, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit stating pending the above writ petition, Annamalai University has published the
results for B.A. (History) course on 30.09.2005 and she has passed the course in second class.
7. The petitioner submits that the respondent knew that she could not produce Provisional Certificate required certificates on 19.09.2005 when
she was called for counseling. Therefore, the respondents are estopped by their own conduct from insisting on production of her provisional
certificate and they have waived the requirement of producing the Provisional Certificate, etc. at the time of verification on the date of counseling.
Having selected her for admission and having sent the Intimation Letter, the respondents ought to have allowed her to take part in counseling and
choose the College of her choice and given her a reasonable time for production of her Provisional Certificate, which they failed to do so. The
respondents 2 to 4 ought not to have insisted on the production of Provisional Certificate certificates. She had been denied opportunity to take part
in counseling session though she was called for the same. The petitioner contends that the respondents have acted in the most unfair, arbitrary,
unjustifiable, irrational and unreasonable manner and further submits that they ought to have postponed the date of counseling until results were
published and certificates furnished by the University.
8. The petitioner in W.P. No. 31279 of 2005 studied Higher Secondary Course privately and passed the Higher Secondary Examination held in
1992 and is working in a private Company in Chennai on temporary contract work basis. He joined B.A. (History) Correspondence Course in
August 2002 in Annamalai University, Distance Education Centre and passed the first and second years and the respective mark sheets have been
furnished to him. He wrote the final year examination in May 2005, the result of which is awaited.
9. Evincing keen interest to study Law, he applied for B.L. (3 year degree course) Entrance Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Dr.
Ambedkar Law University. In the Prospectus, it has been clearly mentioned that those who have appeared for the final year examination for the
degree course in the year 2005 and awaiting results, may also apply. He received the Hall Ticket bearing No. 311755 and wrote the Entrance
Examination at National Patrician Arts and Science College, Adyar, Chennai on 14.08.2005 and scored 41.500% in the Entrance Examination.
Though he had reached the O.C. (open competition) cut-off marks with community rank as 60, he was called for counseling under M.B.C.
Category vide counseling letter sent to him to appear for counseling on 22.09.2005. In view of his ranking position, he was sure to get admission
to the Government Law College, Coimbatore.
10. He appeared for the counseling session on 22.09.2005 in time. His name was called and he was furnished with the form for counseling session
and was asked to fill up the form. After duly filling up the form, he was eagerly waiting for his turn to come. When he was called for verification of
original documents, he produced the following:
Original mark sheets for first and second year of B.A. (History) course
Original Community Certificate
Original form of counseling session
Mark Sheet of Entrance Examination
Counseling Intimation Letter
Identity Card and final year Hall Ticket issued by Annamalai University
Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate
11. He informed the counseling authorities that the results of the basic degree course have not yet been published and undertook to produce the
final year mark sheet and Provisional Certificate immediately on receipt and requested the counseling authorities to give him admission by issuing
Admission Letter. They refused to give him admission and retaining with them, the form of counseling session and intimation letter, directed him to
approach the Registrar, the third respondent herein, and get a letter from him in this regard. Accordingly, he met the Registrar and made a
representation that he would furnish the final year mark sheet and Provisional Certificate in original immediately on receipt from Annamalai
University and appealed to the Registrar to admit him to the Government Law College, Coimbatore and also give him a reasonable time enabling
him to produce the required final year mark sheet and Provisional Certificate. But, the Registrar turned down the petitioner''s request.
12. Similar to the petitioner in W.P. No. 30834 of 2005, the petitioner in W.P. No. 31279 of 2005 also has filed a Supplementary Affidavit and
has contended in the same way as the other petitioner has contended.
13. Aggrieved by the action of the third respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and this Court was pleased to admit the writ petition
and passed an interim order on 27.09.2005 to reserve one seat for the petitioner to Government Law College, Coimbatore.
14. Mr. D. Sadhasivan, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, in his submissions, has contended that the impugned
Instruction 2(vii) of the Prospectus is unreasonable and therefore, it is liable to be quashed inasmuch as the authorities have permitted candidates
who have appeared for degree courses and are awaiting results, to apply and it is not proper to insist that at the time of counseling itself, the
Provisional Certificate has to be produced. The students should not be penalized for the delay on the part of the Universities in publishing the
results and furnishing the required certificates.
15. He further contends that the petitioners'' eagerness in studying Law should not be thwarted by various reasons like delay in publication of the
results Which consequently leads to denial of opportunity to the persons who have already written the Entrance examination and scored higher
marks and hoping to get admission in Government Law Colleges. The authorities are duty bound to admit the students to the B.L. course by
granting a reasonable time to produce the Provisional Certificate before the College commences. The action of the authorities in not permitting the
petitioners to take part in counseling is unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and for that reason, the
impugned Instruction 2(vii) is arbitrary and is liable to be quashed.
16. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court that on the date of filing of the writ petition, counseling was
going on and it was not yet over and seats have been filled up in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai and seats were available in the
Government Law College at Tirunelveli and Coimbatore and therefore, the petitioners have to be considered for admission in the respective Law
Colleges.
17. The respondents have appeared before this Court and the third respondent, on behalf of second and fourth respondents, has filed his common
counter denying all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition except those which are specifically admitted.
18. The case of the third respondent is that the third respondent university issued Notification calling for applications for the Common Entrance
Examinations for 3 year/5 year Law Degree Courses. Along with the applications, Prospectus was also supplied. In the Prospectus, it was clearly
mentioned under Para 2(iii) that those who have appeared for the final year examination of the degree course, i.e. bachelor degree course in the
year 2005 and awaiting results may also apply. Further, under Para 2(vii), it was clearly mentioned that candidates who have not passed qualifying
examination and not received the Degree/Provisional Certificate on the date of counseling are not eligible for admission to 3 year degree course.
The petitioners are candidates coming under Clause 2(iii) above. But, as they were unable to produce the Degree/Provisional Certificate on the
date of counseling, they could not be considered as eligible for selection as mentioned in 2(vii). Knowing fully well the situations and the conditions,
the petitioners had appeared for the Entrance Examination conducted by the respondent University.
19. It is further contended by the third respondent that the candidates have appeared for the Entrance Examination for 3 year B.L. Degree course
on 14th August 2005 and scored marks above the cut-off marks in the Entrance examination, Therefore, they were required to appear for the
counseling session. In the letter sent to the candidates Galling for appearance at the counseling session, it was clearly mentioned the request for
change of time or time for payment of fee or production of original certificates would not be entertained, under any circumstances. Further, it has
also been mentioned therein that in case of failure to appear personally on the appointed date and time with original certificates, the claim for
selection will not be entertained, since selection of candidates gets over on the date of counseling.
20. It is the specific case of the third respondent that the petitioners have not produced the original certificates for passing the basic degree, i.e.
Bachelor Degree at the time of counseling. Therefore, they could not be allotted seats. It was also not known on the counseling date as to when the
results would be published or whether the petitioners would come out successful in the examination. In such a situation, there is no arbitrariness or
illegality or unreasonableness committed by the third respondent university. Having permitted the petitioners to write the examination will not
automatically confer on them, the right to be considered for selection. Selection can be made only on the production of original certificates. In other
words, the selection is not automatic for those who have taken entrance examinations. Therefore, the instructions given in the Prospectus under
2(iii), 2(vii) and instructions issued in the call letter for counseling should be read jointly. The reading cannot be done as interpreted by the
petitioners. Also, the third respondent submits that 3 year B.L. Degree course has already been commenced and therefore, the petitioners'' request
is against the principles of natural justice.
21. The third respondent university contends that the impugned instruction No. 2(vii) challenged in the prospectus is not unreasonable as alleged by
the petitioner. Non-publication of results by Annamalai University on or before the date of counseling cannot be taken as ground for deferring the
counseling session for these petitioners alone. Mere taking the entrance examination does not confer any right on the petitioners for admission to
B.L. Degree course.
22. The third respondent university further contends that during the last academic year, i.e. 2004-2005, a series of writ petitions was filed by
similarly situated candidates. One of such is W.P. No. 25751 of 2004 wherein, the candidate who had studied B.A. (History) through Annamalai
University through Correspondence Course and awaiting results at the time of counseling prayed for admission. This Court, while disposing of the
writ petition on 05.10.2004 has held that the reason given by the University for non-consideration of the petitioner''s application is perfectly valid
and that the action of the University in not permitting the petitioner at the counseling session is not unconstitutional or violative of Article 19 of the
Constitution of India.
23. The third respondent university submits that in view of the fact that the petitioners had not produced the certificates for passing the basic degree
course, they cannot claim any right to be considered and the request, for reservation of seats for them is not fair in the interest of justice and such
reservation of seats would only disrupt the system of counseling itself as there are many similarly placed candidates awaiting their turn and
therefore, the writ petitions deserves no consideration at all and are liable to be dismissed.
24. On 06.01.2006, the third respondent university has filed an additional common counter informing this Court that common counter affidavit of
this respondent filed earlier may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit and submitted that last counseling for general category for the 3 year
B.L. Degree course was completed by 30.09.2005 and thereafter, no admission has been made in the Government Law Colleges under general
category.
25. In such circumstances, the third respondent has prayed that this Court may dismiss the writ petitions filed by the petitioners.
26. Mr. V.M.G. Ramakannan, learned Counsel for the third respondent has contended that the candidates who had the basic degree on the date
of counseling alone can be considered and since the petitioners were not possessing the basic degree at the time of counseling, they could not be
allotted seats and it was also not known on the date of counseling as to when the results would be published and whether the petitioners would
come out successful in the examination.
27. He has further contended that the selection can be made only on production of original certificates. In other words, selection is not automatic
for those who have taken the Entrance examination. The instructions given in the Prospectus under 2(iii), 2(vii) and instructions issued in the call
letter for counseling should be read jointly and therefore, the petitioners'' request itself is against the principles of natural justice and contends that
the impugned Instruction No. 2(vii) in the Prospectus is not unreasonable as alleged by the petitioners.
28. He has further contended that during the last academic year, i.e. 2004-2005, a series of writ petitions was filed by similarly situated candidates.
One of such is W.P. No. 25751 of 2004 wherein, the candidate who had studied B.A. (History) in Annamalai University through Correspondence
Course and awaiting results at the time of counseling, prayed for admission. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition on 05.10.2004 has held
that the reason given by the University for non-consideration of the petitioner''s application is perfectly valid and the action of the University in not
permitting the petitioner at the counseling session is not unconstitutional or violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
29. The learned Counsel for the third respondent University has also pointed out that there was no counseling after 30.09.2005 and in such a
circumstance, the petitioners claim cannot be granted by this Court.
30. Heard both sides. I have carefully gone through the various averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of their writ
petitions and I have also carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and in my opinion, there are two important issues
to be decided in this case.
Whether petitioners had the basic degree on the crucial date of counseling i.e. on 19.09.2005 and
Whether the impugned Instruction 2(vii) in the Prospectus challenged in this writ petition is arbitrary, irrational and against the constitutional rights
guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
31. Admittedly, the petitioners have not qualified themselves at the time of counseling i.e. on 19.09.2005. The results were published by Annamalai
University only on 30.09.2005 by which date the respondent has completed the admission process in all the Government Law Colleges and
therefore, the question of considering the petitioners'' case in accordance with 2(iii) and 2(vii) cannot be entertained and thus, they are not eligible
to be considered as they did not possess the basic degree on the crucial date of counseling.
32. In respect of the second issue, i.e. whether Instruction 2(vii) in the Prospectus is unreasonable or in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have not pointed out anything arbitrary or unreasonable in applying that provision. The learned Counsel for the respondent has
contended that the impugned Instruction in the Prospectus is not unreasonable, as alleged by the petitioner, on the ground that deferring counseling
session for two petitioners alone is not permissible under the procedure contemplated in the Prospectus and that the petitioners have no right
conferred by any law that a person who has appeared for entrance examination has to be considered for selection automatically. In that ground
also, the petitioners have not made out a case challenging the impugned Instruction 2(vii) of the Prospectus as ultra vires of the Constitution.
Therefore, in that count also, the ground raised by the petitioners fails.
33. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of Orissa High Court reported in Deep Kumar Thadani Vs.
Chairman, Admission Sub-Committee, Joint Entrance Examination (K and M) and Others, and the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR
2004 SCW 5699 (Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE) and contends that mere non-production of relevant certificate cannot be a ground for denial
admission.
34. I have carefully gone through the above said two rulings and, in my opinion, such decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case,
the reasons being that, (i) in the decision of the Orissa High Court reported in AIR 2001 61 cited supra, denial was on the ground that original
mark sheet has not been produced even though provisional mark sheet has been produced and the explanation of the candidate that he had lost the
original mark sheet was accepted by the Court. In such circumstances, the Court held that denial of admission was improper and (ii) in the decision
of the Supreme Court on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, the necessary correct certificate has been produced at
the time of second counseling.
35. However, in the cases on hand, the facts are entirely different. It is not in dispute that a person can be admitted to LL.B. only if such person
passes a degree course. Even though many of the Universities permit students who have appeared for the examination but whose results were yet
to be published, to apply, it is obvious that at the time of selection, such persons can be selected only if they were eligible in all respects, including
basic educational qualification. In the case of the petitioners, the basic qualification is a degree for admission to 3 year B.L. course.
36. Admittedly, in the instant cases, the petitioners have not passed the degree examination at the time when they were called for selection.
Therefore, the decision of the University in not admitting the petitioners cannot be found fault with. As a matter of fact, a similar view has been
expressed in order dated 05.10.2004 by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 25721 of 2004 in respect of the very same University
relating to a candidate similarly situated.
37. In another identical matter, i.e. W.P. No. 35311 of 2004, this Court in order dated 24.03.2005 has expressed a similar view relating to a
candidate of the same University.
38. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 1230 (Charles
K. Skaria and Ors. v. Dr. C. Mathew and Ors.) and State of Kerala and Anr. v. Dr. K.U. Gopalakrishnan and Ors.) and contended that a
prospectus is not a scripture and commonsense is not inimical to interpreting and applying the guidelines therein. Once this position is plain, the
addition of special marks was basic justice to proficiency measured by marks.
39. Considering the facts of the cases, the above decision of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, cannot have a hold in support of the case of the
petitioners, the reason being that they have not secured the basic qualification on the crucial date of counselling, and in Paragraph 25 of the above-
referred decision, it was held as under:
The equity of this instruction of the Government comes into bold relief when we realize that no party in this Court has a case that the candidates
admitted by the Selection Committee did not secure a diploma in Ophthalmology.
40. In the present cases, the petitioners had not even possessed the basic degree at the time when they were called for counseling. Therefore, the
decision of the respondent University in not admitting the petitioners cannot be found fault with because of the fact that they Had not possessed the
basic qualification as per the requirement stated in the Prospectus and in such circumstances, the above-referred ruling of the Supreme Court is not
applicable to the case of the petitioners. Therefore, I am not inclined to apply the said decision of the Apex Court also to the facts of the oases on
hand.
41. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is reliably learnt that one candidate who has written final year B.Sc. examination in
Annamalai University under Directorate of Distance Education System was called for counseling on 21.09.2005 on which date, the results Were
not published and the Provisional Certificate was also not furnished. Yet, she has been given admission and she is now doing her B.L. (3 year
course) in Government Law College, Coimbatore, Hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioners claims that the petitioners are also similarly
placed but they have not been provided seats and thus, there is a discrimination.
42. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners have indicated that the petitioners had possessed the required qualification only on
30.09.2005 and the certificates would be made available only thereafter, on which date, the counseling for admission to Government Law College
would be over, as per the counter filed toy the third respondent University.
43. In such a situation, the above said case of one candidate wherein she had acquired the degree on 21.09.2005 i.e. prior to the closing of the
counseling on 30.09.2005 itself, cannot be applied to this case. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners on or before. 30.09.2005 is not legal since
the last date of counseling of the University is 30.09.2.005. Thereafter, there was no counseling for the Government Law Colleges and the question
of considering the petitioners'' case after 30.09.2005 is not feasible and hence, in my view, there is no discrimination as contended by the learned
Counsel for the petitioners.
44. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also made insistence that there was counseling after 30.09.2005 but he has not made out any
record to substantiate his insistence. To ascertain the veracity of his submission, the respondent was directed to file an additional counter affidavit
and in that additional counter affidavit, in para 3, it has been stated as follows:
Last date for counseling of the 3 year B.L. degree course was completed by 30.09.2005 and thereafter, no admission has been made in the
Government Law Colleges.
45. From the foregoing discussions and the various grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the counter filed by the
respondent University, it is very clear that, on the crucial date of the counseling, the petitioners were not possessing the basic degree as per the
requirement and have not produced the required certificates and further, there is no prima facie case made out by the petitioners to assail the
infirmities with the impugned Instruction 2(vii) of the Prospectus.
46. In view of this, this Court is not inclined to consider the petitioners'' case alone as the third respondent University has been continuously
following this procedure every year scrupulously in selecting the candidates and in such circumstances, the contention of the petitioners in assailing
the impugned Instruction 2(vii) is not at all acceptable.
47. In such view of the matter, the claim of the petitioners in getting admission to 3 year B.L. Degree Course in Government Law College for the
academic year 2005-2006, which has practically come to an end, cannot be accepted. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed without any
order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.s are closed.
