Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 915
High Court of Karnataka
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
Saurav Khatiwada
Versus
Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences & Another
Writ Petition No. 38097 of 2013 (EDN-EX)
Decided on: 01-10-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Abhishek Malipatil, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, S.G. Pandit, Advocate, R2, Served.
Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 226/227: [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Grant of relief for illegally admitting the Petitioner to the College - Powers of the High Court to do justice by moulding the relief - Held, The University consisting of academicians and experts in the field of education have made the ordinance providing the age limit for admission to the course in question. It is impermissible for the Court to interfere with such policy in the absence of arbitrariness. It is well established that the Courts cannot device their own criteria for admission contrary to the Regulations made by the University. The power conferred by Articles 226/227 being designated to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that authorities and organs of the State, act in accordance with law, it cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. The Court cannot direct the University to disobey its own regulations and approve the admission of the petitioner.
The question is what should happen to the petitioner, who has been illegally admitted by the college and if the college has committed a grave error in admitting the innocent petitioner to the D-Pharma course. The petitioner should not be left at the mercy of the college. His future cannot be put in jeopardy. It is settled that Article 226 of the Constitution grants extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary. It is perfectly open for the Court to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects. Article 226 of the Constitution of India being couched in comprehensive phraseology, ex-facie it confers wide powers on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. In appropriate cases, the High Court can do complete by moulding the relief.
The college has to make admissions strictly in accordance with the Regulations of the University. Though notice has been served in this case, the college has remained unrepresented. The college has admitted the petitioner to the course in question contrary to law. The petitioner had not even completed 17 years at the time of his admission. It appears that he has innocently joined the college. The college cannot plead ignorance of the binding Regulations of the University. The Court is of the view that the college has to suitably compensate the petitioner for the hardship and loss he has suffered on account of his illegal admission. This is also a fit case where the College has to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner towards compensation.
EDUCATION - Admission to D. Pharma Course: [S.Abdul Nazeer, J] Refusal of permission to take examination on the ground that the candidate had not completed 17 years of age as required by University Regulations - College knowing fully well admitted candidate for academic session - Refusal of permission to appear in exam held proper. College was directed to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to candidate as compensation for hardship caused and also to re-admit the candidate for next academic session and fees paid by candidate to be adjusted towards next academic session.
1. The petitioner had joined the 2nd respondent - College for the study of Pharm-D course for the academic session 2012-2013. He was admitted to the College on 5.10.2012 in the management quota. The College sent the list of students admitted to the said course to the 1st respondent-University for approval in the month of November, 2012. The University sent the approved list at Annexure-A to the College on 20.08.2013. The admission of the petitioner to the said course was not approved by the University. He was not permitted to appear for the first year Pharm-D course examination held in August, 2013. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition for quashing the communication at Annexure-A disapproving his admission to the said course and for certain other reliefs.
2. The respondent - University has filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner has not completed 17 years of age on or before 31st December, 2012. Therefore, he is not eligible for admission to the said course as per the relevant Regulations of the University.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Chapter I1/ of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 ('Act' for short) provides for the constitution of authorities of the University. The Syndicate of the University is one such authority constituted under Section 24 of the Act. The members of the Syndicate are academicians and experts in the field of education and in particular, education in health sciences. The Academic Council is the Principal academic body of the University to coordinate and exercise general supervision over the academic polices of the University subject to the provisions of the Act, statues and ordinances made for the said purpose.
5. Section 35(1) of the Act provides for making of ordinances by the Syndicate from time to time and amend or repeal the same. Section 35(2)(c)(d) and (i) of the Act empowers the Syndicate to make ordinance providing for conditions under which students shall be admitted to the Courses of study, leading to degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions of the University and conduct of examinations of the University and conditions under which students shall be admitted to such examination, and in all other matters which by the Act or by the Statutes are to be or may be provided by the ordinances. Section 35(3) of the Act states that every ordinance made by the Syndicate in the matter relating to conduct or standard of examination shall consult the Academic Council.
6. The Syndicate of the University has made Pharm-D Revised Regulations, which is effective from 2012-2013 in exercise of power conferred under Section 35(2). These Regulations provide for the eligibility criteria for admission to the course. Regulation 1.2 states that the candidate should have completed 17 years of age on or before 31st day of December of the year of admission to the said course.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was born on 24.1.1996. He was admitted by the College to the course in question for the academic session 2012-2013 on 5.10.2012 in the management quota. He has not completed 17 years of age on or before 31.12.2012. Therefore, he is not eligible for admission to the course for the academic session 2012-2013. In the circumstances, the University was justified in not approving the admission of the petitioner to the course for the academic year 2012-2013.
8. The University consisting of academicians and experts in the field of education have mode the ordinance providing the age limit for admission to the course in question. It is impermissible for the Court to interfere with such policy in the absence of arbitrariness. It is well established that the Courts cannot device their own criteria for admission contrary to the Regulations made by the University. The power conferred by Articles 226/227 being designated to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that authorities and organs of the State act in accordan
