Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
O. P. Garg, J.
KM.ROHINI SINGH - Appellant
Versus
VISITOR, B.H.U., PRESIDENT OF INDIA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 194 Of 1998
Decided On : 10/23/1998
EDUCATION - ADMISSION - CANCELLATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - ESTOPPEL - MISTAKE - B. H. U. STUDENT - DEFINITION - ADMISSION OF STUDENT - CANCELLATION - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - ESTOPPEL - RELIEF - ADMISSION IN CURRENT SESSION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was admitted to M. Ed. course in B. H. U. on 12. 9. 1997. On 15. 9. 1997, her admission was cancelled on the ground that she was not a B. H. U. student as per the definition in the information Bulletin. Petitioner challenged the cancellation order and sought admission in the current session.
Finding of the Court:
1. The admission of the petitioner was cancelled in violation of the principles of natural justice as she was not given an opportunity of hearing. 2. The respondent-University was estopped from cancelling the admission of the petitioner as it was the mistake of the University that led to her admission. 3. The petitioner was not at fault and should not suffer for the mistake of the University. 4. The petitioner can be allowed to pursue her studies in the current session as the session has just commenced and she can make up for the lost time.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's admission was in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the respondent-University was estopped from cancelling the admission of the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner can be allowed to pursue her studies in the current session?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principles of natural justice are required to be followed in all cases where a decision is likely to affect the rights of a person. In the present case, the cancellation of the petitioner's admission without giving her an opportunity of hearing was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The respondent-University was estopped from cancelling the admission of the petitioner as it was the mistake of the University that led to her admission. The petitioner was not at fault and should not suffer for the mistake of the University. 3. The petitioner can be allowed to pursue her studies in the current session as the session has just commenced and she can make up for the lost time.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to give admission to the petitioner in the M. Ed. course for the current session 1998-99 immediately. The petitioner was not to be prevented from pursuing her studies and appearing in the final examinations in the year 1999.
Key Points: - The court held that cancellation of admission without hearing violated natural justice. (!) - The university was estopped from cancelling the admission due to its own mistake leading to admission. (!) - The petitioner was allowed to pursue the M. Ed. course in the current session and to appear in examinations; the writ petition was allowed with directions for admission and costs. (!)
O. P. GARG, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner Km. Rohini Singh appeared in the entrance test for admission to M. Ed. course 1997-98 conducted by Banaras Hindu University (for short b. H. U. ). On 8. 9. 1997 a letter was received by her from the Faculty of Education, B. H. U. to present herself with certain documents for verification and confirmation of admission. On 12. 9. 1997, she submitted required documents and on verification, she was admitted. A fee of Rs. 223 which was meant for B. H. U. students was accepted from her. In this manner, she was admitted to M. Ed. , course 1997-98. When she was pursuing her studies in the said course, a letter dated 15. 9. 1997 was received by the father of the petitioner, which indicated that her admission to M. Ed, course has been cancelled. It was alleged that the impugned order dated 15. 9. 1997 was passed without affording her an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner therefore, made a representation to the Visitor the Honble president of india, New Delhi disclosing all the relevant facts. Simultaneously, she also filed civil Misc. Writ No. 36997 of 1997, which was dismissed on 6. 11. 1997 on the ground that the petitioner had already taken recourse to the alternative remedy of approaching the Visitor. It was observed that the representation of the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously.
( 2 ) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india was filed to ventilate the grievance that no orders on the representation of the petitioner have been communicated to her and that the order dated 15. 9. 1997 cancelling her admission be quashed. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner was intimated by letter dated 15. 5. 1998 that her representation has been rejected by the Visitor of the University. Necessary amendment was sought to challenge the validity of the order rejecting the representation and now in the amended petition, the petitioner has claimed two distinct reliefs ; firstly that the impugned orders dated 15. 9. 1997, Annexure-12, cancelling the admission of the petitioner and the order dated 15. 5. 1998 communicating rejection of the representation of the petitioner dated 6. 11. 1997 be quashed and secondly, the respondents be commanded not to stop/obstruct the petitioner in her pursuing and completing the M. Ed, course and to appear in 1997-98 examination. An omnibus prayer has also been made that the Court may pass any other writ, order or direction as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
( 3 ) IT is an indubitable fact that the petitioner has been granted admission treating her to be a b. H. U. student. The respondent-University does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was admitted in M. Ed. course on 12. 9. 1997. It is, however, urged that the petitioner was not a bona fide and regular student of the respective Faculty of the University as she had passed her B. A. (Hons. ). 1996 and B. Ed, course, 1997 from Arya Mahtla Degree College. Varanasi. an affiliated college of the University. Therefore, she is not a B. H. U. student as provided in the information bulletin for P. E. T. course, 1997-98. According to the provisions contained in Clause 16 (a) in the information Bulletin, at page 10 thereof, the expression b. H. U. student has been defined to mean :
"a B. H. U. student is one who has been admitted through University Entrance Test, B. H. U. and has passed the qualifying examination from the institute/faculty/mahila Mahavidyalaya. Banaras hindu University in the year of the test or one year immediately preceding the test. However, every such candidate shall be required to appear in the P. E. T. and also fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements for appearing in P. E. T. "
( 4 ) ON the basis of above definition, the stand taken by the B. H. U. is that the petitioner cannot be conferred any benefit for advantage as B. H. U. student. It was also made clear that the total intake of the students in M. Ed, course Is
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
