JUDGMENT
G.N. Deshmukh, J.
1. The petitioner, after passing his post-graduation in M.Sc., applied for admission to B.Ed. course in the college of respondent No. 2 of which respondent No. 1 is the Principal. According to the petitioner, on 15-8-90, he was second on the waiting list. The petitioner was not admitted as the petitioner could not meet the demands of the management for paying deposit of Rs. 20,000/-. As the petitioner was not admitted, he addressed a letter to this Court making a grievance that though the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be admitted to B.Ed. course, the admission is denied to him on the ground that he is not prepared to deposit Rs. 20,000/- with the management, in spite of the fact that the petitioner was willing to pay the prescribed charges and fees. Miss. Kulkarni, was appointed as amicus curiae. She has filed proper petition on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Before considering the controversy, it may be mentioned that the concerned college is affiliated to Marathwada University. The recognition is granted to the said institution by the State Government under a special scheme formulated in this regard. The staff is to be appointed as per the norms prescribed by the University and, thereafter, by obtaining approval from the University itself. The admissions are also governed by the Rules framed in this regard. The eligibility for getting the admission to B.Ed. course is also prescribed by the University. The main grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the authorities of the concerned management have not granted admission by violating the Rules, though in law, they were bound to follow the Rules regarding admission.
3. Shri. Khandare, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 the Secretary of Om Shanti B.Ed. College, Ambad, District Jalna has filed affidavit on behalf of the Secretary and contended that the allegation regarding deposit of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- towards donation is totally false. Alongwith the affidavit, some documents have been produced. Admittedly, there were eight students who were admitted as per the merit list as per Exh.R-1, followed by a waiting list of three candidates namely, Rathi, Hajare and Kharabe R.S. the last person on the waiting list, being the petitioner. The percentage of Shri. Rathi was 59.40, Hajare was 58.94 while the percentage of the petitioner is shown as 58.44. There is another list produced regarding waiting list No. 2. We are told by Shri Khandare that all the seven persons from the waiting list No. 2 are also given admission to B.Ed. course. The percentage of Shri Chavan is shown to be 60.05 while, the rest of the six persons shown in the second waiting list, are having percentage, admittedly, less than the petitioner.
4. As Shri Chavan was having percentage of 60.05, we enquired from Shri Khandare as to why Shri Chavan was not included in the first list itself because the last candidate who was admitted, was Shri Gangane having 58.94% marks. We are told that Shri Chavan had not supplied the marks memo for his M.Sc. examinations, and therefore, while preparing the first list, the percentage of Chavan was between 53 to 54. As in the absence of marks memo for M.Sc, additions were not given to him. Thereafter, subsequently, after production of M.Sc. marks memo, addition was considered in favour of Shri Chavan for M.Sc. examination and his corrected percentage was calculated as 60.05. We are unable to understand as to why Shri Chavan was not given opportunity to produce M.Sc. certificate when he has mentioned in his application not only the fact that he passed M.Sc. but he has also stated his grade and also the total marks obtained by him in M.Sc. examination, be that as may.
5. From the documents produced before us on behalf of the respondent No. 2 management, it is clear that the students having less marks than the petitioner were already admitted to B.Ed. course, as the percentage of the petitioner is shown in the waiting list to be that of 58.44 while the percentage of other candidates namely, Patil is 58.08, Pathan 57.67, Waghmara 57, Dighe 56.81, Kantule 56.44 and Kulkarni 56.
6. Shri Khandare, however, contended that the petitioner did not approach the management for admission, in spite of his name appearing in the first waiting list and as the seats were going vacant, the management had prepared the second waiting list and given admissions to all the candidates in the waiting list. It is difficult to believe that at present there is a big competition amongst the candidates for acquiring better qualifications to enable them for better employment opportunities, that a persons like the petitioner would not approach the management and instead, would approach this Court by writing letter. It is not possible to accept the contention of Shri Khandare that the petitioner had not approached to the respondents 1 and 2 for getting admission to B.Ed.course in spite of his name appearing in the first waiting list.
7. In this connection, it was also agitated that this Court should not interfere in favour of the petitioner when no grievance is made by the students who are either admitted or left out. We are unable to appreciate the argument in this regard. This is a fit case where, in our opinion, the intervention of this Court is called for. In this connection, reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chaitanya Kumar v. State of Karnataka, , wherein the Supreme Court has observed that when arbitrariness and perversion are writ large and brought out clearly, the Court cannot shirk its duty and refuse its writ. Advancement of the public interest and avoidance of the public mischief are the paramount considerations. As always, the Court is concerned with the balancing of interest. In this connection, we may refer to the other decisions of Supreme Court wherein, the principles laying down in what circumstances the Courts can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a matter of this nature, – (1) Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand and others, ; (2) Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 344; (3) S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others, and (4) Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others, .
8. In view of the ratios laid down in the several decisions of the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation to interfere in favour of the petitioner in the present case. We are of the opinion that great injustice is caused to the petitioner in the matter of admission to B.Ed. course, when the candidates having less percentage of marks are given admissions to B.Ed, course, by the management. Shri Kadam, learned Counsel for the University contended that no useful purpose will be served by admitting the petitioner for the B.Ed. course for the year, 1990-91 as the acadamic year is coming to an end and the examinations are likely to be held in couple of months. The petitioner would not be in a position to complete the practical work, which is required for the completion of the course, if he is admitted now. We are in agreement with the contention of Shri Kadam that probably the required fulfilment of attendance and practical work may not be possible for the petitioner to complete, even if he is admitted in this month. The petitioner is, therefore, required to be admitted for the B.Ed. course for the next academic year i.e. 1991-92 in Om Shanti B.Ed. College, Ambad, District Jalna.
9. Miss Kulkarni, further contended that if the petitioner is not admitted this year and is not allowed to appear for the examination at the end of the year, the petitioner will be losing one year for no fault of his. It is true that the petitioner is losing one year because the management has not granted him admission for B.Ed. course.
10. There is no doubt that the petitioner is deprived of admission for no fault of his and the candidates having lesser marks that the petitioner are, subsequently admitted to B.Ed. course, last year. We do not find any fault with the petitioner because in the application itself, he had made clear that he is willing to pay the prescribed fees and other charges. In spite of that, he is not given admission to the B.Ed, course. We do not find any fault with the petitioner in seeking admission. After all attempts to get admission for B.Ed. course have failed, probably, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner has already completed his post-graduation. If he had not approached this Court, there was no end probably to his agony in future. He must have suffered for the whole year, not only on the basis of denial of admission to the petitioner but, more because the students having less marks that the petitioner were admitted by the respondent No. 2 to the B.Ed. course, for the reasons best known to them.
11. We, therefore, feel that the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the mental agony and loss. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1143 of 1990 and other petitions, has held that the sugarcane growers are entitled for compensation, for the loss occasioned to them, relying on several decisions of the Supreme Court, namely,
(1) Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar and others, and, (2) Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K. and others, .
12. There is yet another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 692 of 1985 wherein, this Court awarded compensation of Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner in that case for the mental agony and loss of his valuable years of life, where a boy of twenty-four years was made to suffer in the matter of declaration of result by Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education.
13. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation for loss of one year, in the present case also, as the admission was illegally and arbitrarily denied to the petitioner. Not only that but the candidates having less number of makes were admitted and allowed to continue B.Ed. course. We, therefore, feel that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 15,000/- from the respondent. No. 2.
14. Miss Kulkarni was appointed by us as amicus curice. She had filed proper petition and appeared for the petitioner. she is also entitled for fees and the cost incurred by her for preparing and filing the petition. In addition to Rs. 15,000/- granted to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 shall pay Rs. 1,000/- to the Counsel for the petitioner Miss Kulkarni as per legal charges inclusive of fees and cost-incurred by her. The respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit Rs. 16,000/- in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the Counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to withdraw Rs. 1,000/- as her fees and legal charges. The petitioner shall withdraw the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/-. We direct the respondents to admit the petitioner to B.Ed. course for the year, 1991-92, even by creating additional seat, if necessary, on prescribed fees and charges only. The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.
