Back
2005 Supreme(Kar) 310
Karnataka High Court
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
T.D.YOGITHA - Respondent
Decided On : 05-31-05
Writ Appeal : 4970 of 2004
H.K.Vasudeva Reddy, H.N.Shashidhar, K.PUJAR, NELAKANTAPPA, S.P.SHANKAR
Headnote:Admission
EDUCATION
Admission -If admission is obtained by a student by fraud and misrepresentation, such student should not be allowed to take advantage of his misconduct -This is the purpose of cancellation of admission -But admission cannot be cancelled after completion of course where continuation is due to the inaction of the authorities concerned in initiating action within reasonable time.
[P. Vishwanatha Shetty and C. R. Kumaraswamy, JJ]: While the purpose of cancellation of admission of student is to convey in unequal terms the students who secure admission by misrepresentation and fraud, that they will not have the advantage of their misconduct, but the facts and circumstances of the case shows that the cancellation of the admission of the student long after lapse of time or completion of course on account of inaction on the part of the authorities in not taking the action within a reasonable time, would do greater harm to a young student who was not a party to such fraud or misrepresentation, the Courts in those circumstances, should use their judicial discretion to strike a balance between the maintenance of discipline in the matter of admission to educational institution and the individual harm to the concerned student.
Cases Referred: AIR 1993 SC 2412; AIR 1993 SC 2638; ILR 1994 Kar 872.
Enforcement
LEGISLATION - Enforcement -Strict adherence -If results in a serious injury in a given case, if discretion is permitted, court should minimise the injustice by exercising its discretion.
[P. Vishwanatha Shetty and C. R. Kumara Swamy, JJ]: While every Rule and Regulation is required to be enforced as it is in public interest, however, if strict adherence to such Rule/Regulation is likely to result in serious injury in a given case, under those circumstances, if the Courts have discretion to play in between the joints to minimise the injustice that may be caused to a student on account of such strict adherence of Rule/Regulation, in our view, the Courts on consideration of totality of circumstances of the case should do so.
Cases Referred: AIR 1993 SC 2412; AIR 1993 SC 2638; ILR 1994 Kar 872.
Cancellation of admission
EDUCATION
Cancellation of admission -Admission for seat earmarked for agriculturists children -Candidate s father by suppressing the fact that he is a Government servant filed certificate claiming to be an agriculturist -Candidate minor at the time of admission -Course completed -Admission cancelled -Held, inaction of the University in not taking steps to cancel admission at earlier stage would seriously jeopardise career of the young students -Hence, order directing the university to regularise admission and to issue certificate cannot be upset.
[P. Vishwanatha Shetty and C. R. Kumaraswamy, JJ]: It is not a case where the respondent did not possess minimum eligibility to be admitted to the Course. It is a case where the respondent on the basis of marks secured by her could not have got a seat for study of B.Sc (Agriculture) course in the University but for the fact that a claim was made on her behalf that her parents were agriculturists. The respondent is a young lady student. She belongs to reserved class. Her admission for the first time was cancelled on 12th April 2001, that is, after lapse of six years from date of her admission. On an earlier occasion, this Court had quashed the endorsement dated 12th April 2001 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the University. Thereafter, the University again passed the impugned "endorsement dated 30th October 2003. Therefore, at this length of time, we are of the view that if the respondent is deprived of the benefit of her study of B.Sc (Agriculture) course, it would seriously affect her future career. As noticed by us earlier, she was a minor at the time of her admission. There is no material on record to show that she was either a party or had the knowledge of the false declaration given by her father. Under these circumstances, keeping all these matters into consideration, if the learned single Judge has taken the view that the admission of the respondent for study of B.Sc (Agriculture) course should be regularised and she should be issued degree certificate, we do not find any justification to upset the said decision.
Cases Referred: AIR 1993 SC 2412; AIR 1993 SC 2638; ILR 1994 Kar 872.
Judicial discretion
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
Judicial discretion -Inaction of authorities resulting in -accrual of benefits to the subject -Very belated action taken -Benefits annulled -A balance should be struck by the court by exercising its judicial discretion between the action taken and hardship of such benefactor. See, Education -Admission.
Effect of Fraud and Misrepresentation
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
Effect of fraud and misrepresen- tation -Misrepesentation made by father of a minor -Minor benefited by getting admission -Authorities concerned should have detected at the earliest point of time and taken action -Candidate cannot be penalised after a long time. See Education -Cancellation of Admission.
( 2 ) IN this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 2nd November, 2004, made in Writ Petition No. 54757 of 2003 (EDN) (T. D. Yogitha v University of Agricultural Sciences, bangalore) by the learned Single Judge.
( 3 ) IN the impugned order, the learned Single Judge quashed the endorsement dated 30th October, 2003, issued by the University, a copy of which was produced as Annexure-G to the writ petition, informing the respondent that she is not entitled for issue of marks card and degree certificate and decided to upheld the notification dated 12th April, 2001 issued by the University cancelling the admission of the respondent and further directed the University to issue degree certificate of B. Sc. (Agriculture) to the respondent within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
( 4 ) SRI H. R. Shashidhar, learned Counsel appearing for Sri H. K. Vasudeva Reddy, for the appellant challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge strongly submitted that since the respondent was not entitled to be admitted in respect of the seats earmarked for the children of agriculturists and the respondent secured admission for study of B. Sc. (Agriculture) course by misrepresentation and fraud, the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order. In support of this submission, he strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v Parminder Kr. Bansal and another and in the case of Gurdeep Singh v State of Jammu and kashmir and Others and decision of this Court in the case of K. R. Soma v State of Karnataka.
( 5 ) HOWEVER, Sri S. P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order impugned passed by the learned single Judge. He pointed out that since the learned Single Judge on consideration of the circumstances that the respondent was admitted to b. Sc. (Agriculture) course in the year 1995-96, and she was a minor at the time of her admission; and her father had filed the certificate claiming to be an agriculturist and the University had initiated action against the respondent after completion of the course, there is absolutely no justification for this Court to interfere against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
( 6 ) WE have elaborately heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and we have gone through the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge while receding a finding that the father of the respondent being a Government servant has suppressed the material facts and on that basis has secured admission to the respondent for study of B. Sc. (Agriculture) course in the university during the academic year 1995-96, has quashed the impugned endorsement issued by the University and directed the university to issue degree certificate of B. Sc. (Agriculture) course to the respondent on the ground that the respondent was admitted for study of b. Sc. (Agriculture) course for the academic year 1995-96 and at the time of her admission she was a minor and that it is her father who had filed false certificate claiming to be an agriculturist; and the University had initiated action against the respondent after completion of the course. It is useful to refer to the observations made by the learned Single Judge at para 25 of the order which reads as hereunder: "25. In this case petitioner was admitted to the B. Sc. (Agriculture) course in the year 1995-96. She was a minor at the time of her admission and her father had filed a false certificate claiming to be an Agriculturist. The University has initiated action against the petitioner after her completion of the course. It is not in dispute that she has completed her degree course and it is not the case of the Uni
