JUDGMENT
B. Dikshit, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against a decision taken by admission committee of Allahabad University. The decision of admission committee constituted under Section 28 (1) of Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act (in short ‘Act’), which has given rise to this writ petition, is that by its resolution dated 7.2.1998 the admission committee resolved that the students who passed their qualifying examination of Bachelor of Arts or Science from Ewing Christian College. Allahabad (in short ‘E.C.C.’) are to be admitted on 10% seats of Post-Graduate classes at Allahabad University (in short ‘University’). As interim-order was expiring and admissions to Post-Graduate courses were being delayed, the operative portion of order was delivered on 20.3.1998 and now reasons for conclusions are being declared.
2. The petitioners passed their qualifying examination from E.C.C, and applied for admission to Post-Graduate classes, As petitioners are being denied admission though they obtained more marks than the students who passed their
qualifying examination from University and its affiliated colleges, the petitioners feeling aggrieved by decision of admission committee have filed this writ petition.
3. To determine merit of students applying, admittedly, the University adopted marks system by clubbing the marks of all the three years of graduation course in respect of subject in which admission is sought and prepared a list of merit for admission on that basis. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who were applicants for admission to Post-Graduate classes in Psychology and petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, who were applicants for admission to Post-Graduate classes in Physics, are being denied admission as their merit amongst students, who have applied for admission to said courses, is lower than other students of E.C.C, who have been given admission against said 10% but the students having lesser marks, who passed their qualifying examination from University and its affiliated colleges, are being given preference over them. The University in its counter-affidavit has justified the fixing of quota of 10% for E.C.C, students by claiming that as the courses taught and mode of examination and marks awarded to E.C.C, students have been different, the reservation of 10% seats is within reasonable classification and, therefore, such a reservation is valid. The University also justified such classification on the ground that the E.C.C., in utter disregard to the ordinances framed by the University and First Statutes of the University (in short ‘Statute’), framed its courses in various subjects without sending them for consideration of the Board of concerned faculties in violation of Statutes 20.08. 20.09, 20.12 and clause 4 of Ordinances of E.C.C. Besides said violation, the University claimed that college changed its courses and syllabus without the knowledge and approval of University. The case of University further is that in violation of said Statute E.C.C, appointed external and internal examiners and neither sent any paper or proceeding in relation to framing of courses nor any matter pertaining to examination scheme but held the examination without any knowledge of the University, it is also the case of University that E.C.C, itself prepared and declared the result and sent copy to University for information in violation of Statute 20.09. According to case set-up by University, it was under said circumstances that Head of Departments of various subjects brought these facts to the notice of University, and admission committee after considering all these aspects at length in its meeting dated 7.2.1998 also resolved that from the academic session of 1998-99 entrance test for Post-Graduate classes shall be held but so far 1997-98 session is concerned, it resolved that 10% seats in each Post-Graduate subject shall be reserved for the students of E.C.C. The admission committee left rest of the seats for session 1997-98 for students who passed-their qualifying examination held by University which includes students who passed by correspondence course of University and from other associated colleges of University. The University justified reservation of 10% seats for students passing from E.C.C, on that basis as permissible reasonable classification.
4. Therefore, the questions which arise for determination and are to be answered, in view of above contentions, can be better formulated as follows :
“Was it within the scope of power of Allahabad University to limit the admission of students of E.C.C., an autonomous college of the University, to 10% for admission to Post-Graduate classes for the reason that the syllabus of the college for Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science is different from that of University and its affiliated colleges as well as the examination held by the college was separate from that of University? Can University be allowed to defend fixation of such seats for admission despite the fact that admission committee did not state such a ground in its resolution, the resolution being silent in respect of reasons and grounds as to why and how it was limiting the admission to 10% in respect of students of E.C.C.? Can such fixation be treated as reasonable classification for fixing 10% quota for E.C.C, students as the college went on with teaching on the basis of syllabus other than what it is supposed to teach and declared the result after holding examination on the basis of such syllabus in a manner different from what
University expected and can University treat it as a separate class despite knowing all this and still granting degrees?”
5. The Parliament in Its Seventh Year of Republic of India enacted the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 “to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in University and for that purpose, to establish an University Grants Commission”. The University Grants Commission (in short ‘Commission’) has framed Guidelines for Autonomous Colleges. As the University is getting grants and allocation of funds by Government in view of recommendations of the Commission in discharge of its functions under Section 12 of University Grants Commission Act, the relationship of University with the autonomous college is in accordance with the said guidelines. Although guidelines are with 12 headings, the portion relevant for the purpose of present case are under heading Nos. 2. 3, 4 and 12 (a), which are as follows :
“2. Objectives of autonomy.–An autonomous college will have the freedom to :
– determine and prescribe its own courses of study and syllabi :
- prescribe rule of admission, subject of course to the reservation policy of the State Government; and - evolve methods of evaluation and to conduct examinations. The autonomy shall be a means to achieve higher standards and greater creativity in the future. An autonomous college will be fully accountable for the content and quality of education that it imparts, it will be responsible for evaluation of the students for awards of degrees which will be accepted by the parent University.
3. Relationship with the parent University and other Educational Institutions.–The autonomous colleges will have autonomy to draw upon the expertise of the university departments and other institutions in framing curricula, devising the methods of evaluation, conduct of examinations and selection of teachers. The autonomous colleges will also have freedom to enter into collaborative teaching, research or extension education programmes with other colleges and institutions of higher learning with a view to strengthen their programmes and take benefit of facilities existing elsewhere. While the parent universities of the autonomous college will accept the methodologies of teaching, evaluation and examination, course, curriculum etc, the universities will help the college to develop their academic programmes, improve the faculty and provide necessary guidance through participation in different statutory bodies recommended for autonomous colleges.
4. Award of Degrees.–The degrees will be awarded by the parent University and the name of the College will be mentioned in the degree.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
12. General Matters :
(i) ........... (ii) Universities should ensure that students of autonomous colleges are not denied or treated less favourably for admission in courses at higher levels in the Universities/Non-autonomous colleges. (iii) ........ (iv) .......... 6. If the present case is examined in the light of aforesaid guidelines, then the evaluation of the students for awarding degrees is to be done by the E.C.C, and it has been rightly done by the college so far guidelines are concerned.
Similarly, the Allahabad University being parent University had to confer and conferred degrees mentioning on it the name of college. But the action of University is not in accordance with guideline 12 (ii) as it has limited the admission of students of E.C.C, to Post-Graduate classes on 10% seats leaving 90% seats for the students who passed qualifying examination as University students or students of affiliated or associated colleges. This action of admission committee limiting the admission of students of E.C.C, to Post-Graduate classes is clearly contrary to guidelines of the Commission.
7. The learned counsel for respondents has tried to justify the resolution dated 7.2.1998 of admission committee limiting the admission of candidates who passed their qualifying examination from E.C.C, on the ground that the college did not comply with Statutes 20.08, 20.09, and 20.12 and Ordinance 4 of E.C.C., which are as follows :
“20.08. (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 42, an autonomous college shall be entitled–(Section 42) :
a) to frame the courses in the subjects covered by its privileges :
(b) to appoint persons qualified to be appointed as internal or external examiners in such subjects ;
(c) to hold examinations and to make such changes in the method of examination and teaching as in the opinion are conducive to the maintenance of the standard of education.
(2) The Board of Faculties concerned, the Academic Council and the Examination Committee may consider the action taken by the Autonomous College under clause (1), and may suggest any change, if necessary.
20.09. (1) The results of the Autonomous College shall be declared and published by the University which shall mention the name of the college which has presented the results for declaration and publication (Section 42).
(2) Every Autonomous College shall furnish such reports, returns and other information, as the Executive Council may, from time to time, require to enable it to judge the efficiency of such college.
(3) The University shall continue to exercise general supervision over an Autonomous College and to confer degrees on the students of the college passing any examination qualifying for any degree of the University.”
* * * * *
“20.12. Subject to the provisions of Section 42 (2) and of this Chapter, the courses of study and other conditions relating to an Autonomous College shall be such as may be laid down in the Ordinances (Section 42).”
* * * * *
Ordinance 4 :
“4. The proceedings of the College Academic Council shall be reported as per provisions of the Statutes of the Academic Council of the University through the Board of the concerned Faculty of the University.”
8. The learned counsel for University on the basis of averment made in counter-affidavit, argued that the college did not send any paper/proceed ings in relation to framing of courses and any matter pertaining to their examination scheme. He also contended that E.C.C, held examinations without any knowledge of the University and declared and published result Itself and only sent information to University in violation of Statutes 20.08. 20.09, 20.12 and Ordinance 4 of E.C.C. The petitioners have disputed such case which is set-up in counter-affidavit by filing a rejoinder-affidavit and claimed that the said Statutes were complied with. Such disputed question of fact cannot be determined in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore. 1 refrain from expressing any opinion on it.
9. The learned counsel for petitioners has also argued that even it’ the facts set out in the counter-affidavit are accepted, yet the petitioners are entitled for admission in preference to the candidates who passed their qualifying examination from University with lesser marks. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that the University has conferred degree on petitioners, which is also at par with students who passed examinations from University or its affiliated colleges and, therefore, there cannot be any justification for treating them other than at par, specially when condition while granting autonomous status is that the University has to ensure that the students are not denied or treated less favourably in view of guideline 12 (ii) of Commission. The only justification by admission committee for fixing the quota of 10% is that the college did not follow the necessary syllabus and necessary mode of teaching students of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science courses at E.C.C, as well as in holding examinations and declaring results, all of which was done without the knowledge of University in disregard of Ordinance. The Justification falls within college-wise preference which is not permissible as held by Apex Court in Mohan Bir Singh Chawla v. Punjab University, Chandigarh and another, JT 1996 (11} SC 226. Therefore, it is not open to University to justify the action of admission committee after conferring degrees on the ground that Statute or Ordinances were not followed during the course of studies and examinations in obtaining graduation degree by petitioners, it is relevant to mention here that learned counsel for University has relied upon the cases where University-wise classification has been upheld by Apex Court. As Apex Court has specifically held that college-wise preference is not permissible, the learned counsel for University is not right in relying upon the cases which justify University-wise admission for giving preferences.
10. Such a contention cannot be accepted for another reason. As stated earlier, the University has granted degrees to petitioners and has not taken any action. On the other hand, when petitioners were admitted to E.C.C., which is an autonomous college governed by the Act, Statutes framed there under, besides the guidelines of Commission for autonomous colleges, the petitioners had reasonable expectation that for higher studies, they would be treated at par with students of the University and other affiliated and associated colleges. This reasonable expectation made them to get themselves admitted at the college and pursue courses of study. If the case set-up in the counter-affidavit is examined in the light of Statute 20.09 (3), the college continued its studies and examinations under general supervision of the University. Certainly, it is the case of University that the college pursued the courses of study and held examinations of Part I, Part II and Part III without submitting necessary papers and declared the result without the knowledge of the University, but the University has conferred the degree on petitioners is a fact accomplished, it is surprising that the University, which admits sending of information about teaching and results by college, did not take any action for all the three years and has even conferred the degrees on the students of E.C.C. After conferring the degrees with open eyes on students, the University is to be estopped from taking the stand set-up by it. On the other hand, students, who pursued the course and appeared in the examination had reasonable belief that syllabus and examination is under supervision of University and there is nothing in their way to be treated at par with University and affiliated colleges students, for further studies at University. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be discriminated with other aforesaid students, in case there was anything in violation of Act, Statutes. Ordinances or Guidelines for autonomous colleges in pursuing the course and holding of the examination of petitioners, University is to be held to have failed in discharge of its statutory obligation of supervision due to which it cannot be allowed to refuse admission. Such a classification cannot be permitted. Thus, the students of E.C.C, are to be treated at par with other students of the University and affiliated colleges in absence of any indication in the Act. Statutes, Ordinances and there being specific guidelines of the Commission for autonomous colleges that University should ensure that students of autonomous colleges are not denied or treated
less favourably in admission to courses at higher levels in the University. For all that is said above, the argument of learned counsel for University that students of E.C.C, are to be classified as a separate class on the ground that they pursued a different course and appeared in an examination at which their marks are not to be equivated and treated at par with students of University and other colleges, is liable to be rejected. For said reason the cases of D. N. Chanchala etc. v. State of Mysore and others, AIR 1971 SC 1 762 and Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others, AIR 1985 SC 1059, cited by learned counsel for University are also not attracted.
11. The learned counsel for University has also argued that if the resolution of admission committee dated 7.2.1998 is not allowed to be given effect, then most of the seats in Psychology and other subjects will go to students who passed qualifying examination in the year, 1997 from E.C.C. To illustrate this he has given the example that about 11 out of 13 general seats in Psychology will go to the students of E.C.C. As the E.C.C, students have pursued the course they were taught and appeared at the examination, which has been recognised by the University to the extent that even degrees have been conferred on them, after conferment of degree, the University cannot be allowed to take such a ground for refusing the relief in this petition to petitioners, it cannot be ruled out that students who obtained admission at E.C.C, might be more meritorious and merely because they joined that college and had no control in respect of syllabus or teaching of the course and mode of examination, which under the Statutes is under the supervision of the University, they cannot be made to suffer. If University had any doubt in respect of merit of petitioners or other students who studied at E.C.C., then it could have gone for an entrance test from this very year to determine merit of all students seeking admission.
12. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to observe that the University has set up a case that E.C.C, has pursued the course of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science of Part I, Part II and Part III from 1994 to 1997 in violation of Statutes 20.08. 20.09 and 20.12. Such a thing is to be checked. An autonomous college cannot be allowed all this which affects the standard of education. If what has been stated in counter-affidavit filed by the University is correct, then the University has also failed to discharge its obligation in supervising the courses of study for last three years at E.C.C, and has conferred the degree on such students when its own case is that the E.C.C, has not maintained the standard in pursuing the courses and holding of the examinations. For this, the E.C.C, and University are answerable to Commission which is looking after the financial needs, etc, of the University and it is for the Commission to look Into these matters.
13. This takes us to the question as to what relief is to be granted to the petitioners. The resolution of admission committee is hardly six weeks old, it appears that the University has not completed its admissions and teaching as on 4.3.1998 Sri P. S. Baghel. Advocate appearing on behalf of the University “stated that except Psychology teaching in any Post-Graduate course has not started as yet. He also stated on that day on behalf of University that no further admissions will be made in Post-Graduate classes in Physics and Psychology. After hearing the counsel for parties on 11.3.1998, this Court restrained the University from having further admission in all subject in Post-Graduate classes till 20th March, 1998 for which University reserved 10% quota for students of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science and in subjects in which students of E.C.C, have applied for admission for 1997-98 session, in view of the fact that the University has not completed its admission and study in courses, except Psychology, the proper order under the facts and circumstances of the case would be to quash the admissions made in various courses in which the students of E.C.C, have applied and direct the University to admit the students on the basis of merit determined according to marks obtained by them at the qualifying examination, leaving it open for University to hold entrance test, if it so desires.
14. In view of aforesaid reasons following order has been passed allowing writ petition on 20.3.1998 by this Court :
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed, the admissions made by the admission committee of Allahabad University for Post-Graduate classes for the session 1997-98 in all those subjects in which the students who passed Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science examination from Ewing Christian College. Allahabad in the year 1997 is quashed and the admission committee of the Allahabad University is directed to admit the students on the basis of merit determined according to marks obtained by them at the qualifying examination, it is also kept open for Allahabad University to hold entrance test for admission to Post-Graduate courses in such subjects, if it so desires, for the year 1997-98 Instead of admitting on the basis of marks obtained as ordered above.”
15. The Registrar will forward a copy of this judgment to Chairman. University Grants Commission at New Delhi and Principal. Secretary, Higher Education. Government of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow as well as to Director of Higher Education. Government of Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad.