Colleges must obtain proper authorization from the relevant university before admitting students; unauthorized admissions can lead to penalties.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have approached this Court with assertions that after completion of second round of counselling, they were offered admission by the respondent college (respondent No.4), in furtherance whereof they have deposited their applicable fee on 08.12.2018 with the respondent-college, whereafter they have been pursuing their course - Diploma in Ayush Nursing.

2. According to the petitioners, despite having submitted their application forms and requisite fee for the examination, the respondent-University did not issue them admit card, then they enquired in the matter and learnt that there is some confusion between the respondent No.4 - college and the respondent No.3 - University relating to their admission, for which, their admissions to the course are not being considered valid by the University.

3. On 24.03.2021, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted interim order in petitioners' favour and permitted them to provisionally take part in the examination.

4. Ms. Sumitra Singaria, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were given admission in place of 10 students out of total 40 students, who were given admission by the counselling Board of respondent-University in the second round of counselling but did not turn up or deposited fee. She asserted that after the admission, the petitioners have been diligently attending the classes. She submitted that the petitioners are bonafide students and had no clue that the admission being offered to them was irregular.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-University argued that the admission given to the petitioners is absolutely illegal and the same was given by the respondent-college at its own accord, without the petitioners having taken part in any sort of counselling conducted by the respondent-University. According to him, as per the admission policy, no student can be given admission in a college but for approval of the counselling Board/respondent- University.

6. Dr. Akshaya Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent- college, inviting Court's attention towards the various documents, submitted that since 10 students out of the 40 students, who were given admission pursuant to second round of counselling did not turn up, these 10 petitioners-students contacted respondent No.4- college and requested the college to give them admission and pursuant to telephonic conversation which the representative of the college-respondent No.4 had with the University, they were given admission, as the University orally accepted their request to admit these students. She submitted that requisite information in this regard was forwarded to the respondent-University well in time.

7. Upon Court's query, Dr. Shukla, learned counsel informed that a list of these 10 students was given to the respondent- University in a sealed envelope and its receipt is not with the college. She was even unable to tell the date and person to whom such list was supplied.

8. Respondent No.4 - college has its own story for justifying the admission, whereas the University has refuted the genuineness of the documents, including the list at page No.33 and 34 of the writ petition. While strongly disputing the genuineness of the documents, the University has taken a stand that no information of admission of these students was ever given to it.

9. Mr. Bhandawat submitted that as per the University's record the students who were given admission have been indicated in the list (Annex.R-4) provided by the college and names of these petitioners do not find mentioned in the list of students admitted in the college.

10. After hearing rival counsel at length and upon perusal of material on record, this Court is of the view that the assertions made by the college are too difficult to be believed.

11. The facts which have transpired are, that the respondent No.4 - college has admitted the petitioners sans approval of the Counselling Board or competent authority of the University. This Court unhesit