Back
2004 Supreme(All) 1880
2004 (5) AWC 5175
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
Dr. B. S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ.
Special Appeal No. 498 of 2003
Decided on October 11, 2004
Bhaskar Tiwari
Versus
Vice-Chancellor, U. P. Technical University, Lucknow and others
Counsel for the Petitioner: H. P. Dubey and C. L. Pandey.
Counsel for the Respondents: Satish Trivedi, Neeraj Tiwari and Anubhau Trivedi.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that admission cannot be retained if obtained by fraud, and estoppel cannot be raised to defeat the provisions of a statute.
Headnote:
UP-SEAT - Admission to Bachelor of Technology (Electrical and Electronics Course) - U.P. Technical University Act, 2000, Section 19 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the U.P. Technical University Act, 2000, particularly Section 19, and the relevant ordinances and government orders related to admission criteria for the B.Tech course.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the admission of a candidate to the Bachelor of Technology (Electrical and Electronics Course) in the Academic Session 2001-02. The candidate was admitted to the course by a private institute, but his admission was later cancelled due to not meeting the eligibility criteria of obtaining 50% marks in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the candidate's admission was rightly cancelled by the institute as he did not meet the eligibility criteria. The court also dismissed the special appeal and vacated the interim orders that allowed the candidate to appear for examinations.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the institute was justified in cancelling the admission of the candidate. Additionally, the court considered the candidate's plea of unawareness of the eligibility criteria and the institute's contention of fraud in securing admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the institute was justified in cancelling the admission of the candidate as he did not meet the eligibility criteria. The court also rejected the candidate's plea of unawareness and the plea of estoppel raised by the candidate's counsel.
Final Decision: The special appeal was dismissed, and the interim orders allowing the candidate to appear for examinations were vacated.
Dilip Gupta, J.—The judgment and order dated 23.5.2003 of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 54360 of 2002 has been impugned in this special appeal.
2. The dispute in the writ petition out of which the present special appeal arises relates to the admission to the Bachelor of Technology (Electrical and Electronics Course) in the Academic Session 2001-02. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the admissions to the Regional Engineering Colleges, Government Funded Engineering Colleges as well as Private Engineering Colleges are regulated by the U.P. Technical University (hereinafter referred to as the University), which has been established under the U.P. Technical University Act, 2000. The said University conducts an Entrance Test known as the U.P. State Engineering Admission Test popularly called as "UP-SEAT" and on the basis of the marks obtained at the aforesaid Entrance Test the candidates are admitted in the different Engineering Colleges/Institutes. For the Academic Session 2001-02 the Entrance Test was conducted by the UP-SEAT 2001.
3. Under Section 19 of the U.P. Technical University Act, the Academic Council of the University is the Principal Academic Body responsible for the maintenance of standard of instructions, education and examination of the University. The Academic Council has framed Ordinances in this regard and clauses 2.1(a) and 2.2 which are relevant for the purposes of the controversy involved in the present case are quoted below :
"2.1 For admission through entrance examination:
(a) For admission to B.Tech Ist Semester, a candidate should have passed the 10+2 examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. or its equivalent with Mathematics. Physics and Chemistry as subjects. For Agriculture Engineering Branch a candidate with Agriculture subjects at 10 + 2 level is also eligible.
2.2. For direct admission made at Institution/College level after entrance examination counselling :
The eligibility criteria for direct admission on seats remaining vacant after entrance examination counselling shall be such as may be notified by the State Government/University from time to time".
4. The University did not notify the criteria for direct admission on the seats remaining vacant after the entrance examination counselling but the State Government by the order dated 18th October, 2001, notified the criteria by providing that the vacancies should be published in prominent newspapers and the Institute should invite only those candidates who have passed the Intermediate Examination or equivalent examination with 50% marks in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics but the process of admission should be completed by 25th October, 2001 and the Controller of Examination of the University should be accordingly informed.
5. The petitioner appeared at the aforesaid entrance test but his name did not appear in the list dated 20th June, 2001, containing the names of candidates provisionally selected for admission. However, since certain seats still remained vacant, the Institute could make direct admissions in view of Clause 2.2 of the Ordinances, quoted above.
6. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Bharat Institute of Technology, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) for direct admission, the petitioner was admitted to the B.Tech Course by the said Institute in January, 2002 and he pursued his studies and appeared at the 1st Semester and 2nd Semester Examinations of the 1st year. The Examination Form for the 3rd Semester was, however, not forwarded by the Institute since his admission had been cancelled. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation to the Secretary, Technical Education and when no action was taken, he filed a writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 49479 of 2002 which was disposed of with a direction that the representation may be decided. The representation was then rejected by means of the order dated 10th December
