JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are being decided by this common judgment/order.
The appellants are hereby impugning the order which has been passed by learned single Judge of this Court on 17-1-2000 whereby learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by these appellants.
2. The appellants are taking the exception to the judgment and order passed by learned single Judge on brief grounds like non-consideration of the relevant provisions around which the admissions of the students revolved. It has been also contended that learned single Judge committed the error in interpreting the relevant Rules made for admitting the students to the 1st year of B.E./B. Arch. The exception has also been taken to the Judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge by criticising it on the ground that learned Judge has not considered that there Has been infringement of the fundamental rights of the appellants so far as Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution is concerned.
3. Appellants Ku, Varsha Shrivastava, Madhur. . . . Agarwal and Soumi Chatterjee had appeared for P.E.T. examination. They secured marks above 33% in P.E.T. Examination. In view of that, they claimed that they should have been admitted in 1st year of B.E. course and that too in Govindram Seksaria Institute of Technology and Science, Indore (hereinafter referred to as ‘Institution’ for convenience). In the alternative, it was contended that they should have been admitted in other parallel institutions.
4. The main grievance of the appellants seem to be that putting aside their claims for admission, some other students who are interveners in these appeals have been granted admission to the said course and that too in the Institution.
5. Briefly it has to be mentioned that the counselling was conducted in four phases, last phase of the counselling commenced from 21-10-99 and closed on 24-10-99. All these appellants did appear for, the said counselling. In that 4th phase of counselling, the interveners got the opportunity of getting the admissions and that is the grievance of the appellants.
6. It will have to be mentioned here that father of Ku. Varsha Shrivastava is a professor in the S.G.S.I. T.S. Institute. He wrote a letter to Chairman, P.E.T. Counselling Directorate of Tech. Education, Bhopal on 28-8-99 in respect of the counselling of his daughter Ku. Varsha Shrivastava (one of the appellants). Thereafter Dr. R. K. Shrivastava, Professor CE-AMD, SGSITS. Indore, wrote another letter to Shri A. V. Singh, Principal Secretary. Manpower Planning Depti, Govt. of M.P. Bhopal on 21-9-99. That letter bears a title “My telephonic talk with you on 21-9-99 at about, 7-30 p.m.” which has been underlined. A request has been made to Principal Secretary, Manpower Planning Deptt. of State of M.P. at Bhopal that a seat be reserved for his daughter Ku. Varsha who was having Roll No. 306948 in the said examination and secured 352 marks out of 900 marks. Again a letter was written by the same person on 30-9-99 to Dr. Y. K. Sharma, Director, Directorate of Tech. Education Satpura Bhavan, Bhopal. The subject was the same. Again, a letter was written by him to Dr. P. C. Sharma on 1-10-99. Thereafter Annexure P/10 will have to be considered and that is communication made to counselling incharge Director, Tech. Education, Satpura Bhavan, Bhopal and that is from Dr. Basant Shrivastava, who happens to be the grand-father of Ku. Varsha. That letter has been annexed with a guidance given to counselling incharge, instructing him as to how counselling is to be done. It speaks of itself. No further comments from this Court.
7. Soumi Chatterjee got the admission in Shri Vaishnava Institute of Technology and Science, Indore, besides her choice she is claiming the admission in the institute, respondent No. 3 and alternatively other institutions.
8. The interveners strongly objected to the maintainability of this appeal. Therefore, and in the interest of the community of students at large and protecting their future, this appeal is being decided finally at this stage by considering a bottle-necking at the admission stage from the interveners. The State Government respondents 1 and 2 supported the process of counselling and the admission which has been granted to the interveners. Shri DD. Vyas, learned A.A.G., pointed out that the process was crystal clear, transparent and in accordance with the rules meant for that. Repelling the criticism which has been levelled by Shri B.C. Jain appearing for the appellants putting a blame on the system, alleging it as arbitrary, unfair, capricious and resulting in infringement of fundamental rights of the appellants’ guaranteed by Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. The first point of objection which has been raised by the counsel appearing for the interveners is that this appeal cannot be admitted for final hearing because, it suffers from the vital defect of non-joinder of necessary parties. They submitted that while filing the writ petitions also the petitioners did not implead the interveners as necessary parties for trying to bye-pass their interest. It has been submitted on behalf of them that if at all a relief is granted in favour of the appellants, the entire future of the Interveners would be ruined and they would be also loosing their careers. It has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the interveners that the appellants were not fair, open minded in disclosing the correct information when they were approaching the Court for the purpose of getting a relief which would have prejudiced the interest of the interveners and their carrers in future. They also justified the process of admission and submitted that the admissions have been given to them when the vacant seats were available for admitting them to the said course. It has also been submitted by them that father of Ku. Varsha Shrivastava being a teaching professor in the institute, was having the full information about the availability of seats and the fact of admitting the interveners in the same institute or other institutions.
10. What should be the attitude of the Division Bench while deciding the LPA has to be eloberated because the flood of LPAs is increasing. It is intra Court appeal therefore, the Division Bench should not scan out the order passed by the single Bench from all corners. If the order is legally good enough to deal with the averments made in the matter of writ petitions, if it is correct enough and justifiable on legal grounds, the Division Bench should be slow in disturbing it. It is not to be dealt with as if it is the first appeal. That order is not to be tested on all facts an inch by inch. Keeping in view this approach which should be followed while deciding the LPA, this Court is progressing further for dealing with the initial objection which has been raised by the counsel appearing for the interveners. Obviously, if the relief is granted in favour of the appellants that would be prejudicing the future of the interveners. If the record of the matter is carefully seen it is to be noted from the record that on account of the stay which has been obtained by the appellants from the single Bench dealing with the Writ Roster, the interveners have been treated as “detained students” and they have lost one semester. That has to be kept in mind while deciding these appeals.
11. Shri B. C. Jain submitted that the learned single Judge has committed the error in interpreting the rules which are meant for counselling and giving admission to these students and therefore the appeals be allowed without hitch. We are unable to agree with him. If these appeals are admitted and relief is granted to the appellants so, what would be the fate of the Interveners who have already been granted admissions in B.E. courses, 1st year? The students –young boys, who are looking to their future with optimistic view would be again dodged and put to side corner by the grant of relief in favour of the appellants without hitch. He submitted that interveners were not nececessary parties at all. We do not agree with this submission because they have locus standi in the hearing of the said writ petitions and these appeals as of right. The matters could not have been and could not be decided in their absence. Therefore, according to us these interveners were necessary parties and they should have been impleaded as necessary parties not before the single Bench but even in these appeals. The appellants have not done that. Thus, these appeals fail on the ground of tenability.
12. It has been argued by the counsel appearing for the interveners that the appellants are interested in getting the relief by passing the claim of the interveners disturbing admissions which they have already secured by the process of counselling on 23-10-99. Already they have lost a semester by grant of an interim relief to the appellants. Again there would be a disturbance and impediment in their way of persuing the course to which they have been admitted, and their admissions would be reduced to zero.
13. By examining the material which is on record it Is pertinent that appellants have followed the system of “supressio, veri, suggetio falsi”. The appellants had taken strong exception to the process of granting admission to the interveners. They have come with the case that they secured more than 33% marks in P.E.T. but at the same time there is nothing to show as to what marks they had obtained in Higher Secondary Examinations (10+2). A person who comes to the Court for getting relief has to come with clean hands and has to place all material and all the informations which happens to be within his knowledge. If a person who is indulging in unfair activities, he cannot blame other for being unfair, leave aside, arbitrary and copricious. At this stage it is important to point out that it was totally unfair on the part of the guardians of Ku. Varsha Shrivastava to have communications with concerned persons holding authority and dealing with process of counselling. It is surprising as to why a guiding note has been furnished to the counselling authority. Why there should be a telephonic talk not with the Director cocerned but with the Principal Secretary also. Why Ku. Varsha Shrivastava should insist that she should get admission in Shri Govindram Seksaria Institute of Technology & Science alone? On the contrary, the State Government should follow the rule that no student should be admitted in the College where his kith and kins are having power or authority to have the opportunity of getting extra advantage. The persons should avoid interfering in administration of government, forget of advising the officers. Father of Ku. Varsha, her grand-father have done it. We do not want to say anything more than what has been said but to sound an alarm, the persons who speak of fair play and fair justice, should keep themselves far away from all these activities. One who demands fairness, should play a fair game. These letters and communications were likely to affect number of candidates who were not having such influential persons with them. Such activities are likely to influence concerned officers at the cost of many ‘havenots.’
14. In addition to this, if at all this Court is expected to express the opinion about the merit of the order passed by the learned single Judge, this Court has to speak something about the objections, exceptions taken by the appellants and the criticism levelled against judgments passed by the learned single Judge. The single Judge is not expected to search out/scan out case from every inch and corner of averments made by the writ petitioner and it is not disirable also. What he has to do is to assess them as whole in view of the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties and to adjudicate on it according to law. The learned single Judge has considered all important things of the matter and has rightly focussed his attention towards the case made out by the concerned parties. We do not find that the learned single Judge has committed error of interpretation of the rules. Rule 2.5.1 to 2.5.8.1 has been correctly interpreted by the learned single Judge and has rightly come to the conclusion that in the counselling the seats which were vacant and available on that date have been given to the interveners because they were having the marks more than 50%. It has been pointed out by Shri Bagadia that it is not the case of appellants that they were not present or that they were not invited to the last phase of the counselling. He pointed out that they wanted admission in a particular institution but they were not given that and hence they were aggrieved.
15. Leaving it behind submission advanced bring us to another aspect of the case and that is the diligence shows by the appellants in approaching the Court and the infirmity of laches against the petitioners.
It has been pointed out by Shri Bagadia that father of Ku. Varsha Shrivastava happens to the working in the same Institute. Therefore, he must have been well aware of the fact that the interveners must have been admitted in the same institution. The counsel appearing for the interveners submitted that the last phase of counselling was made public by the publication on 14-10-99 and, therefore, it at all the appellants were aggrieved, they should have approached the Court immediately. But that was not done, even up to 24-10-99, nor on followijng days i.e. 25-10-99, 26-10-99. The petitions came to be filed on 27-10-99. The person ailing with unbearable pain of denial of justice would immediately rush to the Court seeking relief. The appellants now speak of infringement of their fundamental rights in view of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, but they did not give appropriate consideration to such rights of the interveners in context with Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
16. When the seats were available, the interveners were having sufficient marks what was wrong in considering their rightful claims. That has been considered by the learned single Judge in his Judgment and order with a broader approach.
17. Apart from that, the learned Judge has pointed out that already the interveners have been given admission and they have studied sufficiently for the said course. Learned single Judge pointed out in para 17 of the Judgment:
“It also cannot be disputed that after getting admission in the Institute, the position of interveners, has considerably changed w.e.f. 23-10-99, when they were given admissions in the institute. No claim has been laid and no case has been made out for disturbing admissions of Interveners made by invoking Rule 2.5.2,2. Now the equity swings in favour of the interveners after getting admission in the institute, they have even missed one semester, as on account of shortage of attendance they could not appear in the exams. So at least from the next semester their interest has to be safeguarded. Even, otherwise, no fault of interveners, they have been put to a loss of one semester at least now the same should come to an end.”
18. The learned Judge has also pointed out in paragraph 18 that “thus, considering the matter from all angles, and also keeping in mind that petitioner is prosecuting her studies somewhere else, whereas Interveners have been granted admissions only in the Institute, I find that this and the connected petitions deserve to be dismissed.”
19. Thus, the learned Judge has considered the relevant rules, have considered the process of counselling, process of admitting the students, more particularly the Interveners and thereafter have come to a conclusion that he did not find that the fundamental rights of the appellants in context with Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution have been in any way infringed. Apart from that, the learned Judge has taken a broader view by saying that the studies which are being prosecuted by the interveners and their future should not be interfered with when the appellants did not make out a suitable case. What is illegal in it, while dealing with these matters?
20. It is always to be kept in mind that the quarrel should not be permitted to be prolonged. The atmosphere should not be permitted to be polluted so as to create a feeling of bitterness in the mines of all the persons who are concerned. Perhaps that may stay lingering on for days, months and throughout the career also. Therefore, the attitude should be “Bygone be gone”. Let their be fresh consideration of the situation by Govenment for framing more exhaustive rules strong enough to deal with any situation without leaving scope to embiguity, Government should find out better the procedure by indicating the clear rules whom the P.E.T. students should be granted admission as of a right and at what stage the students who secured more marks in 10+2 examinations but could not be appear for P.E.T. should be granted admissions. For such courses, there has to be equality between all students. All who have studies the courses and have passed the examination (10+2), the Rule should be the same, the opportunity should be the same and the criteria should be of equality. The discrimination and disparity should be avoided as early as possible. The Government should take early steps in framing clear rules and systemising the entire process of admitting the students to these courses.
21. The interveners who are admitted in the institution but have been treated as “detained” should be treated to have been admitted to said (sic) as “Regulars” forthwith and they should also be permitted to appear in the examination if they are eligible for that. This Court wants to make it clear that the amount of Rs. 5000/- which the interveners have been directed to deposit should be retained by the Institute respondent No. 3, if at all, it has been taken by the Institution and if at all, it has been deposited by the interveners.
22. Keeping in view the larger interest of the students, the authorities are hereby directed to consider the claim of all who are legally entitled to get the admission, if the seats are available and if they are eligible, according to rules and process, The authorities should also consider the case of Soumi Chatterjee sympathetically. If it impossible to grant her desired Branch that may also be considered by remaining strictly in four corners of the Rules and legal process. The same would be the direction in respect of Ku. Varsha Shrivastava and Madhur Agarwal. But this is totally dependent on availability of seats. There should be no compromise, no concession and no relaxation whatsoever.
23. These appeals are dismissed but with no order as to cost keeping in view of the facts that the litigants are students for whom their parents are under tension like the students themselves. The authorities should also consider whether the legible candidates and are having entitlement, can be admitted to free seats, totally dependent on permission and legal process.
