Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BEFORE THE HONble O. P. GARG, J.
ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 786 Of 1998
Decided On : 08/17/1998
EDUCATION - ADMISSION - ELIGIBILITY - ESTOPPEL - BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY - B.ED. COURSE - MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF MARKS - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - APPLICABILITY - ESTOPPEL AGAINST EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITIES - CONSIDERATION OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Abhishek Srivastava, who had obtained a Master of Commerce degree, desired to become a teacher. He appeared in the Entrance Test conducted by Bundelkhand University in 1997 for admission to the B.Ed. Course and topped the list of successful candidates with 84.47% marks. However, he was denied admission at Pt. J.N. College, Banda, as his name did not appear in the list transmitted by the University for admission to the B.Ed. Course due to a subsequent amendment requiring a minimum of 45% marks in the B.A. examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was eligible to appear in the Entrance Test as the minimum percentage of marks requirement was not prescribed at the time of submission of the application form. The court also found that the petitioner was issued an admit card and allowed to take the Entrance Test even after the amendment, and that he topped the list of successful candidates. The court held that the respondents were estopped from denying admission to the petitioner based on the subsequent amendment, as they had allowed him to take the Entrance Test and had not objected to his admission until after the results were declared.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was eligible to appear in the Entrance Test for the B.Ed. Course conducted by Bundelkhand University in 1997. 2. Whether the respondents were estopped from denying admission to the petitioner based on a subsequent amendment requiring a minimum of 45% marks in the B.A. examination. 3. Whether considerations of justice and equity should prevail over legal considerations and technical formulae in determining the petitioner's eligibility for admission.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was eligible to appear in the Entrance Test as the minimum percentage of marks requirement was not prescribed at the time of submission of the application form. 2. The court held that the respondents were estopped from denying admission to the petitioner based on the subsequent amendment, as they had allowed him to take the Entrance Test and had not objected to his admission until after the results were declared. 3. The court held that considerations of justice and equity should prevail over legal considerations and technical formulae in determining the petitioner's eligibility for admission, as he had topped the list of successful candidates and had pursued the B.Ed. course in pursuance of the court's orders.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 2.12.1997 passed by respondent no. 3 on the representation of the petitioner, and directed that the petitioner be deemed to have been validly admitted in the B.Ed. course in respondent no. 3 college in pursuance of the Entrance test conducted by Bundelkhand University respondent no. 2 in the year 1997. The court also directed that none of the respondents shall put any impediment in the way of the petitioner to pursue his studies and to appear in the ensuing B.Ed. examination.
( 2 ) IN the present writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, a prayer has been made by the petitioner that the order dated 2. 12. 1997, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, rejecting his representation be quashed and the respondents be commanded to permit him to pursue his stuties in B. Ed. Course in respondent-3 college and no impediments or restrictions should be placed in his taking up the ensuing examinations. A supplementary affidavit has been filed to indicate that now the examinations are to take place in the month of October, 1998.
( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 it has been averred that since the petitioner does not fulfil the minimum qualification as has been prescribed under the notification dt. 4. 7. 1997, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, he was not eligible to appear in entrance test. It was maintained that the petitioner being ineligible to appear in the entrance test, is not entitled to seek admission in B. Ed, course, even though he had topped the list of the successful candidates. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
( 4 ) HEARD Sri Giridhar Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents.
( 5 ) TO begin with, it may be mentioned that at the time when the application for entrance test for admission to the B. Ed, course were invited by the respondent- University, Minimum qualification was only graduate in view of the Government notification dated 5. 5. 1987. However the question of prescription of minimum percentage of marks was in contemplation and consideration of the government and this fact was mentioned in clause 17 (2) of the printed application form required to be submitted by the candidates desirous of seeking admission to B. Ed, course. A firm decision in the matter was taken by the Government on 4th July, 1997 on which date the notification, copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition, was issued prescribing minimum requirement of 45 percent marks in the degree examination and the requirem
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
