Kuldip Chand Sood, J.@mdashThe Himachal Pradesh University (University for short) in the Department of University Institute of Information Technology (UIIT for short) invited applications for admission to Bachelor Course in Information Technology (BIT for short) for the academic Session 2000-2001 from the desirous candidates who had passed 10+2 examination or equivalent with Physics, Mathematics and any one of the other elective subjects from a Board/University established by law in India with 50% marks or equivalent grade. Total number of seats available for the Course were 40. The distribution of seats was :
(a) Subsidized seats for H.P. bona fide/domicile and passing 10+2 exam from H.P. = 18 (b) For other than H.P. = 10 (c) Non-subsidized seats for bona fide/ domicile and passing +2 exam from H.P. = 6 (d) For other than H.P. = 4 (e) Seats for those from abroad (Direct Admission Seats). = 2 Total= 40
2. Thus, the reservation of the seats for H.P. bonafide/domicile candidates who had passed+2 examination from Himachal Pradesh was 60%. Reservation of 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes in each category was also stipulated in the subsidized category.
3. The basis for admission to all the seats (except direct admission seats from abroad) was merit in the entrance examination which was to be conducted by the H.P. University. Separate merit list for subsidized and non-subsidized seats was to be prepared. Two seats which were reserved for candidates from abroad called "direct admission seats" were to be filled from amongst the candidates who must have passed + 2 or equivalent examination from abroad and secured atleast 75% marks or equivalent grade in physics, mathematics and one more elective subject. The fees for such candidates was fixed at US $2000 per semester. It was stipulated that in case any of the seats remained vacant or fell vacant in this category, the same was to be passed over to the candidates belonging to non-subsidized category. The candidates were at liberty to apply for both subsidized as well as non-subsidized seats.
4. The University issued Prospectus for admission to this Course (2000-2001) which detail all the conditions and eligibility criteria. The prospectus is placed on record as Annexure P3 to the writ petition.
5. Anirudh Sharma, Petitioner herein, passed his + 2 examination in the year 1999 and obtained 54.5% marks. He applied for admission for the BIT Course and appeared in the written test on 7.8.2000. He secured 115 marks out of total marks of 200. The Petitioner being lower in merit, could not secure the admission either against the subsidized or non-subsidized seats.
6. The case of the Petitioner is:
The University increased the number of seats from 40 to 52. However, the Petitioner was not called for counselling even after the seats were increased. On 12.10.2000, a notice was circulated by the University indicating that three seats were still available for admission in BIT Course. Out of these three seats, one was available for H.P. non-subsidized category and two seats for other than H.P. non-subsidized category The willing candidates from amongst the candidates who had already appeared in the test, were asked to give their option for consideration against these seats by 11.00 a.m. of 18.10.2000. The Petitioner, in response to this notice made an application on 17.10.2000 expressing his willingness to be considered for admission against these three seats. It is the further case of the Petitioner that only three applications were received in the office of the UIIT by the stipulated time and date in the notice. The Authorities, nevertheless, entertained one application at 11.15 a.m. without signatures. Signatures, on th|s application, however, were obtained at 2.00 p.m. The Respondents also considered the application of another candidate which was submitted at 3.00 p.m. The Petitioner made a representation (Ann. P4) to the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Vice Chancellor marked the represen- tation to Deputy Secretary/Honorary Director UIIT for examination and discussion before finalising the admissions.
7. It is the case of the Petitioner that in spite of his personal request his representation was not considered by the Authorities. He made another representation on 21.10.2000 (Annexure P5) addressed to the Director of UIIT but without any response. The Petitioner made yet another representation on 1st December, 2000 (Annexure P6) which also remained unattended.
8. The Petitioner came to know that Abhinav Chauhan, Respondent No. 3, was granted admission to the BIT Course in September, 2000 though he had obtained 103 marks out of 200 in the entrance test which were lower than the marks obtained by the Petitioner. Such an action, it is pleaded, is arbitrary and illegal.
9. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents. The University is arrayed as Respondent No. 1. Honorary Director of UIIT is Respondent No.2 and Abhinav Chauhan, selected candidate with lower merit is Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner prays :
(i) That admission granted to Respondent No. 3 in BIT Session 2000-2001 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and Petitioner being higher in merit to Respondent No. 3 may be granted admission against that seat;
(ii) That in the alternative the Respondent University may kindly be directed to grant admission to the Petitioner against one of the available vacant seats in BIT 2000-2001 course with all consequential benefits;
(iii) That the Respondent University may be directed to produce records pertaining to this case for the perusal of this Hon''ble Court;
(iv) Any other relief deemed proper in the circumstances may also be granted;
(v) Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
10. A joint return was filed by the University and Honorary Director, UIIT (Respondents No. 1 and 2). Respondent No. 3 filed his separate return. In its return, the University controverted the allegations made in the writ petition and particularly stated that representation of the Petitioner was received and the same was duly considered and appropriate orders were passed by the Vice Chancellor. It was denied that any application was entertained after the stipulated time and date for the receipt of applications. The Respondent-University on the representation of the Petitioner and other applicants decided to keep these three seats unfilled. This position was duly recorded on the representation of the Petitioner (Annexure R4 to the return).
11. In view of the reply of the University, the Petitioner moved an application (CMP No. 261 of 2001) for amendment of his writ petition to say :
(i) the endorsement on Annexure R4 (also Annexure P7) was anti-dated by the University Authorities as 19.10.2000 and in fact, this endorsement was "written on some subsequent date so as to defeat the legitimate claim of the Petitioner";
(ii) the Honorary Director had no authority to decide that the three vacant seats be not filled;
(iii) the admission to the course was to be governed by the terms and conditions as mentioned in the Prospectus Annexure P3 issued by the Respondent-University and no other method, including inviting applications for the direct admission seats, passed over to the candidates belonging to non-subsidized category could be introduced. Such invitation was contrary to the provisions of the Prospectus and could not be adopted by the Respondent-University for the selection of the candidates.
12. It was also stated that the main dispute is regarding filling up of the two "direct admission seats" against the provisions of the Prospectus. Consequential amendments were also sought to be made in the writ petition.
13. On 20.3.2001, we directed that the Respondents may file reply to the application (CMP No. 261/2000) for amendment of the writ petition as also reply to the amended writ petition. No reply was filed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 though reply to the amended writ petition was filed by them. Respondent No. 3 in his reply opposed the application on the ground that the Petitioner had never intended to be considered against the "direct admission seats" as the fees for the same were quite high. Had he intended his consideration, he would have applied pursuant to the circular (Annexure R1/A) of the University. The Petitioner, it is stated, never even pressed his claim till the writ petition was filed by him though notice (Annexure Rl/A) was circulated on 2.9.2000. Respondent No. 3, however, did not file reply to the amended petition.
14. In the facts and circumstances, we allow the application to amend the writ petition. Amended writ petition along with reply of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to the amended petition and rejoinder are taken on record.
15. The Respondent University and Director UIIT in their joint reply state that the first counselling was fixed for 2nd September, 2000. The H.R candidates who had obtained minimum of 130 marks and candidates from States other than H.P. with 142 marks in the entrance test were called for this counselling.
16. On the basis of counselling, following admissions were made:
Category-A
(i) Subsidized H.P. Bona fide : (a) General category 15. (b) S.C. candidates 02. (c) S.T. candidates : 01. (ii) Subsidized other than H.R: (a) General category 09 (b) S.C. 01. Category-Non-subsidized (a) Bona fide Himachali 06 (b) Non Himachali 04
17. All the Himachali candidates for subsidized category deposited their fees. However, against ten seats for States other than Himachal Pradesh, only eight candidates in the general category and lone candidate in the Scheduled Caste category deposited the fees.
18. For the non-subsidized category, against six seats for Himachali candidates, only four candidates deposited their fees and against four seats for States other than Himachal Pradesh, one candidate deposited his fee.
19. No body applied against the two "direct admission seats". Therefore, these two seats "were thrown open in the non-subsidized category but the fee was kept at higher slab", e.g., $2000 or equivalent thereto in Indian currency as was chargeable for non NRI candidates. It is further stated that against these two seats the consideration for selection, from amongst the non-subsidized candidates, was merit in the entrance test. Accordingly, applications were invited from the willing candidates for consideration against these two "direct admission seats" but Petitioner did not apply. Seven candidates for the non-subsidized seats applied for consideration against these two seats. All of them were called for counselling for 23rd September, 2000. Only three candidates reported for counselling. The merit was drawn taking into consideration comparative marks obtained by them in the entrance test which was:
(a) Harnam Preet Singh. 120. (b) Abhishek Raj Singh. 108. (c) Abhinav Chauhan (R3). 103.
20. It is the case of the Respondent University that candidate at Sr. No. (b) Abhishek Raj Singh did not deposit the fees and, therefore, his seat was passed on to Respondent No. 3 on payment of $2000 in Indian currency.
21. It is the case of the University, the Petitioner did not apply for being considered against the direct admission seats, therefore, there was no question of he being considered/selected for admission against these two "direct admission seats". The Petitioner, it is pleaded, in the circumstances cannot challenge the selection of Respondent No. 3.
22. It is admitted by the University that on 27th September, 2000, the intake to the Course was increased by 12 seats and these 12 seats were allocated to various categories as under:
(i) Candidates from H.P. subsidized category:
General. 5.
S.C. 1.
(ii) Candidates from H.P. Non-subsidized category:
General. 1.
(iii) Candidates from States other than Himachal
Pradesh subsidized
category :
General. 1.
S.C. 1.
S.T. 1.
(iv) Other than H.P. Non-subsidized category :
General. 1.
(v) Direct admission.
NRI. 1.
23. In view of the increase in the seats, the fourth and final coun selling was held on 5.10.2000 and candidates, other than Himachali candidates, having obtained minimum of 115 marks in the entrance test, were called for counselling. So far the seats against Himachali candidates were concerned, they were filled from the waiting list of the entrance examination in accordance with merit. The Petitioner could not come in the merit. It is the further case of the University that after the counselling of 5th October, 2000, three seats still remained vacant. Out of these three seats, one seat was for Himachali non-subsidized category and two seats were meant for direct admission category as Harnam Preet Singh who earlier got admission against direct admission category seat, was selected for admission against non-subsidized (Non-Himachali seat) and as such, one more seat against the direct admission seat became available. In order to fill these three seats, a notice was circulated on 12.10.2000 and eligible candidates were required to apply and report for counselling by 11.00 a.m. on 18.10.2000. Five candidates reported for counselling by the due date and time, namely:
Sr. No. Name Roll No. Marks
1. Pankaj Khosla 1778 124
2. Shivani Pal 1873 120
3. Shoba Parmar 1866 120
4. Anirudh Sharma, 1626 115
(Petitioner)
5. Nishant Mahajan 1767 104
24. It is further case of Respondents No. 1 and 2 that in addition to these applicants, two more applications one from Jitender Kumar and another from Kuber Alagh were received well before time but they did not report for counselling. Two other candidates, namely, Yaman Kumar Gupta and Ms. Deepu Sanodhu having 124 marks represented, after 11.00 a.m. on 18.10.2000, that the notice for the filling up of three seats was very short and was not given wide publicity. The representations are annexed as Annexures R2 and R3. These representations were considered and it was decided to keep three seats in abeyance in view of the fact that classes had already started from 11th September, 2000. It is also stated that if wide publicity was to be given for filling up these three seats, eight Weeks of 14 weeks semester would have already been over and, therefore, "it was decided that these three seats should not be filled". In the meantime, representation of the Petitioner (Annexure P4) addressed to the Vice Chancellor was also received. Whole matter was put up before the Vice Chancellor who agreed that these three seats should not be filled as per endorsement on Annexure R4. It is further submitted that even if these three seats were to be filled, Petitioner would not have been admitted on the basis of merit as there were three candidates with more marks above him.
25. It is the case of the University that it was necessary to invite applications for the filling up of two direct admission seats from amongst non-subsidized candidates as the fees for these two seats was higher than non-subsidized seats. The names of the applicants who responded to the notice were considered on merits, though "no fresh applications were to be invited for additional seats".
26. We have heard Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.S. Mittal, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. G.D. Verma, for Respondent No. 3 and have also perused the records.
27. Several contentions were raised by Mr. Dogra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He contended:
(a) Admissions to the Course in question were to be made as mentioned in the Prospectus (Annexure P3) and the University could not have invited the applications afresh from amongst the candidates for non-subsidized seats. This method was contrary to the provisions contained in the original Prospectus which have force of law;
(b) The University gave complete go-bye to the merit list of the entrance test and gave admission to Respondent No. 3 who was lower in merit to the Petitioner in the entrance test which action is illegal and contrary to law;
(c) After the increase in the seats for the Course, three seats remained unfilled and inspite of representation of the Petitioner, he was not given admission and the subsequent decision of the Director UIIT to keep three seats unfilled for the academic session was arbitrary and illegal.
28. So far the first contention of Mr. Dogra is concerned, we find it well founded. The argument of the learned Counsel is that the Prospectus stipulated all the conditions and contemplated all contingencies and it was not open to the Respondent No. 2 to have invited fresh applications by notice dated 2nd of September, 2000 (Annexure R1/A).
29. It appears no person applied for the two "direct admission seats" which were reserved for candidates from abroad the fees for which per semester were fixed to be US $2000 as is apparent from the prospectus (Annexure P3). Under the heading "Basis of Admission" at Sr. No. 1, it is stipulated that for admission to all seats (except two non subsidized seats meant for candidates from abroad), an entrance examination shall be conducted by the University and separate merit list shall be prepared for subsidized and non-subsidized seats. At Sr. No. 2, it is declared that in case "direct admission seats" remain vacant or falls vacant, the same will be "passed on to the candidates belonging to non-subsidized category".
30. Mr. Dogra contended that there was no requirement for inviting applications from amongst the non-subsidized category candidates for consideration against these two seats. These two seats which remained unfilled were required to be filled from amongst the non-subsidized candidates in order of merit in the entrance test as stipulated at Sr. No. 2 under the heading "Basis of Admission". The Prospectus or Brochure for admission has the force of law and, therefore, this action on the part of Respondents No. 1 and 2 was clearly arbitrary, mala fide, illegal and consequently, the admission of Respondent No. 3 is liable to be quashed. Mr. Dogra heavily relied upon Gunjan Kapoor v. State of H.P. and Ors. 1999 (1) Shim LC 246;
31. Careful perusal of this stipulation at Sr. No. 2, clearly shows that if the two "direct admission seats" are not filled, then the same automatically passes on to the candidates for non-subsidized seats. In view of this unambiguous stipulation, in our opinion, it was not open to the Respondent No. 2 to have invited applications for filling up these two seats by notice Annexure R1/A which reads:
University Institute of Information Technology. Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla-171005.
Dated 2.9.2000.
NOTICE
This is for information of all that no candidate from abroad, i.e. foreign national/NRI has applied for two seats in the category of "Seats from abroad, i.e. Direct Admission Seats". Hence, it has been decided to throw them open as per the provisions of the Prospectus. The candidates who wish to be considered against these two seats may apply within 15 days. Those who have already submitted their applications need not apply again. The selected candidates will have to pay to fee $2000 or equivalent thereto in the Indian currency per semester.
Sd/-
Director, UIIT.
32. These two seats automatically having passed over to the candidates for non-subsidized seats, were to be filled from amongst those candidates in order of merit. The invitation of the applications was against the express representation in the Prospectus which had the statutory force. The moment candidates from abroad did not apply against these seats, the candidates from the category of non-subsidized seats became eligible for consideration in order of merit on payment of the requisite fees and ought to have been so admitted to the Course.
33. The Division Bench of this Court, in
34. In
11. Again, on the principle that the rules contained in the prospectus were representations to the public, or to individuals seeking admissions, on which reliance could be placed by candidates, it would not be open to those who make such representations, even as a result of executive orders, to apply some other rules or criteria not contained in these rules. In support of such a principle, the authority cited was : Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies (AIR 1968 SC 718).
12. Right of admission to an educational institution run either by the State or by a State aided institution, is considered, sufficiently important to be classified as a fundamental right to Article 29(2) of our Constitution. We may also refer here to the term ''State'' as used in Article 12 for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution, which would include, for the purposes of enforcing fundamental rights, institutions such as medical colleges run by the State which do not have legally separate entities. The rules made by such a college, or, on its behalf, by the State Government would be law. Law, as defined by Article 12 "includes any ordinance, order, custom or usage having the territory of India the force of law".
13. We, therefore, concluded that we are justified in treating the rules laid down in the prospectus as having the force of law governing the rights of applicants for admission the power and obligations of the college, its Selection Board, and the Government, in dealing with the cases of the Petitioners for admission which we now proceed to examine.
(Emphasis supplied)
35. Mr. Mittal, learned Senior Counsel for the University vehemently urged that it became imperative for the University to issue the notice inviting applications from the non-subsidized candidates to fill up these two direct seats as the fee was higher, i.e., US $2000 or equivalent thereto in Indian currency. We regret our inability to accept this contention. The prospectus was complete code for admission to the Course. It had envisaged a situation where direct admission seats may fall vacant and therefore stipulated that such seats shall be offered to non-subsidized candidates in order of merit. The University had no option but to offer these two seats to the candidates for non-subsidized seats in order of merit in the entrance examination.
36. As noticed earlier, clauses 1 and 2 under the head "Basis of Admission" reads :
1. For admission to all seats, (except two non-subsidised seats meant for candidates from abroad) an entrance examination will be conducted by the University. Separate merit lists for subsidised and non-subsidized seats will be prepared.
2. The two seats to be offered to candidates from abroad will be called "Direct Admission Seats". However, the candidate must have passed his/her plus two or equivalent examination from abroad and must have secured atleast 75% marks or equivalent grade in physics, mathematics and one more elective subject. On their admission, they would be required to submit proof of their nationality or NRI status alongwith details of the passport and study visa as per rules applicable in case of foreign nation-als/NRIs of the Government of India. In case any of these seats remains vacant or falls vacant in this category, the same will be passed on to candidates belonging to non-subsidized category.
(Emphasis supplied)
37. The two clauses of "Basis of Admission" clearly represents that in case "direct admission seats" are not filled or subsequently fall vacant, they will be filled up from the candidates belonging to the non-subsidized category on the basis of the merit in the "entrance examination". Clause 13 under the heading "Instructions for completing the OMR Application Form" provides that if a candidate is interested in both subsidized as well as non-subsidized seats, he should indicate so in the application form by darking the appropriate bubble. Note-2 under the heading "Important Note" provides, "No application form will be entertained after the last date". It is clear from the reading of these clauses that all contingencies were provided in the Prospectus. It was a complete Code for entire process of selection and no application was further envisaged after a candidate has filled his application form". Maxim ''Expressio unius est exclusio alterius'', meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another, is in our view, is invokable.
38. In our opinion, the action of the University, in inviting applications to "direct admission seats" after they remained unfilled, from amongst the non-subsidized candidates, was arbitrary and illegal being against the express provisions of the Prospectus. Such an action is not sustainable in law. The action gives an impression as if the stipulations in the Brochure were over-reached in order to accommodate a candidate who perhaps could not have been admitted on the basis of merit. The process of admission in a University, particularly, in highly competitive professional Courses must be transparent and strictly in accordance with the Rules and Brochure or Prospectus as the case may be. It is not given to the University to twist or to add to the criteria or rules of admission after the issuance of the Prospectus. As is oftenly said, "the rules of the game cannot be changed after the commencement of the game". In Gunjan Kapoor, the authorities including the University were reminded of their obligations in the matter of admissions to the professional courses and it was clearly said that no action can be taken by the authorities which is derogative to the criteria and rules of admission in the Prospectus.
39. Mr. Mittal then submitted that even if the seats wee to be offered on the basis of merit to the candidates for non-subsidized category without inviting the applications, the Petitioner would not have been admitted as at least three candidates were higher in merit to him namely, Pankaj Khosla, Shivani Pa_l and Shoba Parmar who secured 124, 120 and 120 marks, respectively.
40. It is urged by Mr. Verma, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 3 that the Petitioner first having not applied in response to the notice of the University (Annexure R1/A) and then having not even thereafter staked his claim for consideration against the "direct admission seats" till the filing of the writ petition, cannot at this belated stage challenge the admission of the Respondent No. 3 to the Course. Moreso, when Respondent No. 3 after his selection deposited rupees 93,280 with the H.P. University on 26th September, 2000 by a bank draft, as fees. It is further contended that Abhishek Raj Singh who had applied against this seat and was higher in merit to Respondent No. 3 did not deposit the fees and, therefore, the Respondent No. 3 was rightly admitted to the Course. In view of the circumstances, urged Mr. Verma, Respondent No. 3 cannot be punished for no fault of his.
41. Mr. Verma, learned Senior Counsel also urged that equity is in favour of Respondent No. 3 and, therefore, his admission to the Course should not be disturbed.
42. Be that as it may. The fact remain that there were more meritorious candidates compared to Respondent No. 3 amongst the non-subsidized category and in view of the representations and stipulations in the Prospectus, which had the force of law, the seats ought to have been offered to the candidates in accordance with the merit in the entrance examination. As pointed out by the Apex Court in
43. In
4. It appears that there is some merit in the second grievance of the Petitioner in the sense that on account of the schedule fixed for counseling whereunder counseling for non-Karnataka students is take up after both the rounds of counseling for Karnataka students are completed, it is quite possible that some of the non-Karnataka students may not wait for a chance for admission in Karnataka and may opt for admission in courses offered to them in a College in another State. It would have been preferable if the dates for the counselling for the pre-liminary round for the non-Karnataka students had been fixed immediately after completion of the counselling for preliminary round for Karnataka students. As per the schedule the coun-selling for the preliminary round for non-Karnataka students is fixed after the counselling of the preliminary round and admission round for Karnataka students is completed and consequently the counselling for the preliminary round for non-Karnataka students has been delayed by a month. Since the schedule for counselling for the current year has already been fixed and such counselling is already in progress, we do not consider it appropriate to disturb the said schedule for counselling for this year. It is, however, directed that in future the schedule for counselling for the preliminary round for non-Karnataka students is taken up immediately after the counselling for preliminary round for the Karnataka students is completed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
44. So far the contention that the Petitioner has no right to challenge the selection of Respondent No. 3 to the Course as he would not have been admitted to the Course being lower in merit to several other candidates, though higher in merit to Respondent No. 3 is concerned, the same is noticed to be rejected. It is not in dispute that the seats to the various categories were to be allotted only on the basis of merit including the "direct admission seats" which were passed on to the non-subsidized category. Once it is conceded that the seats were to be filled on merit, it is immaterial who approaches the Court. Some times, more meritorious candidates may not have the necessary means to come to the Court. The admission of Respondent No. 3, by-passing merit, cannot have the seal of approval of the Court. We find support from the following observations of the Apex Court in
8. The third Respondent who appeared in person-and we must say, she put forwards her case with admirable clarity and grace- submitted that inasmuch as none of the said six candidates including Dr. Vibha Aggarwal and Dr. Shiv Prasad Aggarwal have chosen to approach the court complaining of their non-admission, they should not be considered for admission against the said seat and that she, who had approached the court at the earliest possible moment, should be admitted to that seat. She relied upon the decision of this Court in Ashok v. State of Karnataka, in support of the said submission. It is not possible to agree. The allotment of seats should go according to merit. It does not depend upon who comes to court and who does not. The matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the Court. A more deserving candidate may not have the means to approach the Court.
45. Unmerited admissions to the professional courses, in our view, creeps in sense of injustice in the meritorious candidates. The purpose of law, as pointed out in
46. The strength and prosperity of our Society lies with the citizens who are educated in our Schools and Universities. Any erosion in the norms of admission in professional courses of the Universities eats into the vitals of the society and does not augur well for the future of the country. The Apex Court in
24. University imparts education which lays foundation of wisdom. Future hopes and aspiration of the country depends on this education, hence proper and disciplined functioning of the educational institutions should be the hallmark. If the laws and principles are eroded by such institutions it not only pollutes its functioning, deteriorating its standard but also exhibits to its own students the wrong channel adopted. If that be so, how could such institutions produce good citizens? It is the educational institutions which are the future hope of this country. They lay the seed for the foundation of morality, ethics and discipline. If there is any erosion or descending by those who control the activities all expectations and hopes are destroyed. If the institutions perform dedicated and sincere service with the highest morality it would not only uplift many but bring back even a limping society to its normalcy,
47. We conclude that the admission of Respondent No. 3 to the Course, by ignoring the merit is unjustifiable and not in accordance with the provisions of the Prospectus therefore, arbitrary and illegal.
48. The question then arises whether Respondent No. 3 should be allowed to continue with his studies in the Course. Taking into consideration the entirety of the circumstances, the fact that Respondent No. 3 has already completed one year out of the four years of studies for the Course, the fact that he was admitted on 26th September, 2000, whereas, the writ petition was filed after three months, i.e. on 26th December, 2000 and the fact that no fraud in securing the admission is alleged against him, we are of the view that it will not be appropriate to disturb his admission at this stage.
49. We, however, hasten to add that it will not be a procedent. We may at this stage repeat the warning administered by the Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University v. M.L.R. Saraswati College of Education (2000) 7 SCC 746. The Supreme Court said :
It is time that the courts evolve a mechanism for awarding damages to the students whose careers are seriously jeopardized by unscrupulous management of colleges/schools which indulge in violation of all rules. This is not the occasion to go deep into that aspect but one day it has to be done.
50. The other contention of Mr. Dogra was that after the increase in seats for the Course, three seats remained unfilled even after the last counselling. For these three seats, applications from the desirous candidates were invited. The Petitioner opted for consideration against these seats, yet, in spite of reminders, he was not given admission. The subsequent decision of the Director (UIIT), Respondent No. 2, argued Mr. Dogra, to keep these three seats unfilled, was mala fide, arbitrary and illegal. This was done simply to deprive the Petitioner from his legitimate claim for admission.
51. There is no dispute that seats to the Course were increased by twelve on 27th September, 2000. It is also not in dispute that after the increase of the seats and final counselling on 5.10.2000, three seats still remained unfilled. Out of these three seats, one seat was meant for H.P. non-subsidized category and two seats for direct admission category from amongst the non-subsidized candidates. It is the case of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that notice was circulated on 12th October, 2000 to fill these three seats and eligible candidates were asked to apply and report for counselling by 11.00 a.m. on 18.10.2000. As noticed earlier, five candidates reported for counselling including Petitioner Anirudh Sharma. Their comparative merit was :
(1) Pankah Khosla.
(2) Shivani Pal.
(3) Shoba Parmar.
(4) Anirudh Sharma.
(5) Nishant Mahajan.
52. In addition to these candidates, Jatinder Kumar and Kuber Alagh also applied for consideration against these seats but they did not report for counselling. Two of the candidates, namely, Yaman Kumar Gupta and Miss Deepu Sanodhu both having 124 marks also represented (Annexures R2 and R3) on the day of counselling, i.e. 18.10.2000 (after 11.00 a.m.). That notice was too short and the same was not given wide publicity. These representations were considered and it was decided to hold these three seats in abeyance as classes had already started on 11.9.2000 and if wide publicity was to be given for filling up these three seats, it will take another three weeks time and by that time, eight weeks of studies out of fourteen weeks of the first semester would have been over. It is for this reason that it was decided that these three seats should not be filled. It is the further stand of the University that in the meanwhile, the representation of the Petitioner (Annexure P4) addressed to the Vice Chancellor was received. The matter was considered and placed up before the Vice Chancellor who agreed that these three seats should not be filled. It is submitted by Mr. Mittal that the Petitioner who had applied within the stipulated time and date and had also participated in counselling was at Sr. No. 4 in the order of merit and even if these three seats were to be filled, the Petitioner would not have got admission on the basis of merit. Shri Dogra learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that decision was after thought and mala fide to deprive the Petitioner from his legitimate claim. He further contended that the endorsement on the representation of the Petitioner to the effect :
Discussed. In the light of two representations received in the afternoon of 18.10.2K from Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Ms. Deepu Sandhu, it is not possible to call the candidates as per the merit list at this late stage for another counselling which will involve atleast 15 days. By that time, more than half of semester-I would be over. Therefore, it is decided not to fill the seats.
Sd/- (illegible)
19.10.2000.
was anti dated, and penned after the filing of the writ petition "to defeat the legitimate claim of the Petitioner.
53. We need not go into the merits of the allegations of the Petitioner, particularly when there is a word of the Petitioner against the word of the University authorities that this note was appended on the date as reflected in the note. We may in this connection refer with advantage to the following observations of the Apex Court in Admission Committee, CII 1995 and Anr. v. Anand Kumar and Anr. (1998) 8 SCC 33 :
We are unhappy to note that the High Court has chosen to believe the version of the student against the Members of the Selection Committee. It was a case of word against word and in the absence of aViy mala fide or any other supporting material, one should have thought that the Court would have preferred to accept the version of the Selection Committee. Moreover, calling upon the Selection Committee to answer and justify each and every selection made, in the absence of any mala fides is to cause impossible burden upon it. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court but so far as the Respondent is concerned, since three years have passed by since the admission to the course of his choice, we are not inclined to disturb him at this distance of time.
54. Mr. Dogra contended that the decision of the University Authorities to keep three seats unfilled was mala fide. We are not impressed. Having said that, we are of the view that decision of the University authorities, to keep three seats unfilled was neither prudent nor rational. There should be a mechanism with the University to fill up the seats which may remain unfilled or become vacant, by offering the same to other eligible candidates in order of merit. Keeping seats vacant in highly competitive professional courses not only under utilizes the infrastructure of the University for which considerable amount of public money is spent but also breeds frustration and degection in the candidates who could have been admitted on their merit.
55. In
Any vacancy remaining after this shall remain unfilled.
56. This rule came up for consideration before the Apex Court. Learned Judges observed that this part of the rule cannot be held to be rational.
57. We hope and expect that the University and its Authorities in future shall not keep the seats vacant particularly in professional courses. Such vacancies must be filled in accordance with the rules and Prospectus.
58. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the case of the Petitioners. His writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
59. Before parting, we cannot but observe that the Petitioner has brought to sharp focus the illegal and irregular admissions in the University despite several judicial warnings. The University was reminded in Gunjan Kapoor that Information Brochure and Admission Notice or Prospectus has the force of law and any admission contrary to or in derogation to the representations in the Prospectus are unjust, arbitrary and illegal leading to unfair results. This reminder did not have the desired effect.
60. As far back as in 1983, the Supreme Court in
4. Cases like these in which admissions granted to students in educational institutions are quashed raise a sensitive human issue. It is unquestionably true that the authorities who are charged with the duty of admitting students to educational institutions must act fairly and objectively. If admissions to these institutions are made on extraneous considerations and the authorities violate the norms set down by the rules and regulations, a sense of resentment and frustration is bound to be generated in the minds of those unfortunate young students who are wrongly or purposefully left out. In discipline in educational institutions is not wholly unconnected with a lack of sense of moral values on the part of the administrators and teachers alike. But, the problem which the courts are faced with in these cases is, that it is not until a period of six months or a year elapses after the admissions are made that the intervention of the court comes into play. Writ petitions involving a challenge to such admissions are generally taken up by the High Courts as promptly as possible but even then, students who are wrongly admitted finish one or two semesters of the course by the time the decision of the High Court is pronounced. A further appeal to this Court consumes still more time, which creates further difficulties in adjusting equities between students who are wrongly admitted and those who are unjustly excluded. Inevitably, the Court has to rest content with the academic pronouncement of the true legal position. Students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested persons. This has virtually come to mean that one must get into an educational institution by means, fair or foul. Once you are in, no one will put you out. Law''s delays work their wonders in such diverse fashions.
5. We find that this situation has emboldened the erring authorities of educational institutions of various States to indulge in violating the norms of admission with impunity. They seem to feel that the Courts will leave the admissions intact, even if the admissions are granted contrary to the rules and regulations. This is most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted. Some day, not distant, if admissions are quashed for the reason that they were made wrongly, it will have to be directed that the names of students who are wrongly admitted should be removed from the rolls of the institution. We might have been justified in adopting this course in this case itself, but we thought that we may utter a clear warning before taking that precipitate step. We have decided, regretfully, to allow the aforesaid sixteen students to continue their studies, despite the careful and weighty finding of the High Court that at least eight of them, namely, the seven wards of employees and Ashok Kumar Kaushik, were admitted to the Engineering Course in violation of the relevant rules and regulations.
61. The University seems to be in deep slumber and requires a little proding to wake up. We, regretfully do so by directing the University to pay cost of rupees 10,000 which shall be deposited by the University with the Himachal Pradesh Legal Services Authority within four weeks. We will request the Authority to consider holding an appropriate Workshop or Seminar in the University to sensitize the University, its Officers and Authorities to their duties, responsibilities and obligations in the matter of admissions to its various Courses.
62. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. CMPs No. 1706 of 2000 and 261 of 2001.
No order in view of the disposal of the main petition.
