Back
2004 Supreme(All) 1617
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Arun Tandon
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT MAA SHARDA MAHAVIDYALAY SHAMBHOOPUR GAHJI AZAMGARH; INDU PANDEY
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 03 September 2004
C. M. W. P. Nos. 29761 and 35687 of 2004
A.K.SINGH, ANIL TIWARI, I.S.Tomar, J.P.Singh, P.N.Saxena,
The main legal point established in the judgment is that institutions must comply with the prescribed procedures for admissions, and not every order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice needs to be quashed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Admission - B. Ed. Course - Government Order dated 14th December, 1999 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Government Order dated 14th December, 1999 - The judgment discusses the provisions of the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999, which regulate the admission process for B. Ed. Course. It emphasizes the requirement for institutions to intimate the B. Ed. Admission Cell about vacant seats and the consequences of failing to do so. The court interprets the provisions and concludes that the institution was not justified in granting admission to the petitioner-students without awaiting the list of suitable candidates from the University. The judgment also highlights the principles of natural justice and the limitations of quashing orders passed in violation of these principles.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions were filed against the cancellation of admissions to the B. Ed. Course by the University. The petitioners contended that the cancellations were in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the institution was not justified in granting admission to the petitioner-students without awaiting the list of suitable candidates from the University. It also noted that while the University's order may have violated the principles of natural justice, not every such order needs to be quashed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the admissions, compliance with the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999, and the violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the institution was not justified in granting admission to the petitioner-students without awaiting the list of suitable candidates from the University. It also emphasized that not every order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is required to be quashed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions were dismissed as they were found to be devoid of merit.
Heard Sri P. N. Saxena Advocate, assisted by Sri I. S. Tomar, and Sri J. P. Singh Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. Sri Anil Tiwari Advocate and Ajit Kumar Singh Advocate on behalf of the respondents.
2. These two writ petitions are directed against the same order passed by the Coordinator B. Ed. Entrance Cell, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, dated 17th June, 2004 and dated 5-7- 2004, whereby the University has cancelled the admission of the petitioners of the Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004 and has recommended the names of four new candidates for admission in B. Ed Course of 2004.
3. First writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management, Maa Sharda Mahavidyalay, Shambhoopur Gahji, Azamgarh through its Manager Sri Faujdar Singh. While second writ petition has been filed by four students, whose admissions have been cancelled under the aforesaid order.
The relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :
4. Maa Sharda Mahavidyalay, Shambhoopur Gahji, Azamgarh is an institution affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. The said institution has been affiliated for running B. Ed. Course, which is of one year duration, for the academic session 2003-2004.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the National Council for Teachers Education has granted permission to the institution for in take of 100 students in the B. Ed. Course. As against the 100 seats 50% of same are required to be filled on the basis of the entrance examination conduced by the University, while remaining 50% seats are required to be filled by the Management on its own, termed as Management quota.
6. Under the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999 it is provided that, if the candidates recommended by the University against 50% seats, which are to be filled on the basis of the entrance examination conduced by the University, do not join the course, an intimation shall be forwarded to the University with a request to sand-more names. In case within one week no new list of selected candidates is forwarded by the University, it will be open to the Management to grant admission to the students on their own provided the candidates fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria.
7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in pursuant to entrance examination of the B. Ed. Course for the year, 2003-2004 a list of 21 candidates was forwarded by the University for councilling to the institution. Out of the aforesaid 21 candidates, only 13 candidates turned up for councilling and obtained admission. The institution, accordingly, intimated the University about the aforesaid vacant 8 seats and demanded a fresh list of candidates against the said eight vacant seats. The University vide letter dated 17th May, 2004 again forwarded a list of 8 candidates to the institution.
8. As against the 8 candidates so recommended, only 4 candidates were admitted and 4 seats still remained vacant. The institution accordingly, vide letter dated 26th May, 2004 informed the University about the aforesaid vacancies and requested for name of 4 more candidates for admission. Since the University failed to recommend the names of candidates against 4 vacant seats within one week of receipt of the intimation, the institution proceeded to offer admission to the petitioner-students of Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004 on 3-6-2004. The aforesaid admission, according to petitioners, are strictly in accordance with the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999.
9. The University, however, by means of the impugned order dated 17th June, 2004 has cancelled the admissions so granted by the institution in favour of the petitioners, of Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004 and by means-of the letter dated 5th July, 2004 recommended the names of 4 candidates, on the basis of merit obtained by them in the entrance examination conducted by the University for admission.
10. On behalf of the petitioner-students
