Loading...

Sanjai Kumar Singh And Another vs Vice-Chandcellor, Purvanchal … on 30 April, 1990

Allahabad High Court
Sanjai Kumar Singh And Another vs Vice-Chandcellor, Purvanchal … on 30 April, 1990
Equivalent citations: AIR 1991 All 21, (1990) 3 UPLBEC 1849
Author: G Mathur
Bench: S Agarwala, G Mathur


ORDER

G.K. Mathur, J.

1. By means of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the quashing of ‘office order’ dt. 2nd March, 1989 of Principal, Udai Pratap College, Varanasi and the communication dated 7th March, 1989 issued on its basis by the Head of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Udai Pratap College, Varanasi, to the effect that it was not possible for the department to allow the petitioners to study in the classes as their admission was not in order and had not been entertained by the Principal. The petitioners have further prayed to issue a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the studies and with the appearing of the petitioners in M.Sc. (Ag.) 1st year examination of 1988-89.

2. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged. The petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

3. Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, to which Udai Pratap College, Varanasi (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the college’) is affiliated, by the letter dated 16th/ 18th September, 1972, granted formal permission to the college to enroll students in M.Sc. (Agriculture) Part I from July, 1973 fixing the ceiling of 15 students in each Department, namely. Economics, Horticulture and Animal Husbandary and Dairying. The college, keeping in view its resources, admitted six students in Animal Husbandary and Dairying Department up to 1978 and on the increased availability of resources, the Management decided to admit two more candidates with effect from 1979 onwards.

4. The Admission Committee constituted under the Rules as amended on 31st July, 1986 (Annexure VI to the Counter-affidavit

of Principal) for admission of the students for M.Sc. (Ag.) Part I, for the session 1988-89 consisting of the three Heads of Department under M.Sc. (Ag.) met on 23rd September, 1988 and recommended eight candidates for Animal Husbandary and Dairying Department along with a waiting list, prepared in accordance with merits and it was duly notified on 26th September, 1988.

Petitioner No. 2 Inder Sen Singh was placed at serial No. 8 in waiting list (Annexure III to the counter-affidavit).

Petitioner No. 1 Sanjai Kumar Singh was not included in the waiting list because of his low percentage of marks.

In the middle of session the respondent No. 3 the Head of the Department, ‘Animal Husbandary and Dairying’ of the College issued following notice dated 2nd January, 1988 (Annexure I to the writ petition):–

“Two more admissions are to be done in M.Sc. Ag. I (Animal Husbandary and Dairying). Only those candidates are eligible for admission who have applied this year (1988-89). Those desirous of admission should contact the undersigned up to 7th January, 1989 by 10 a.m. The admissions will be made strictly on merit out of those present on 7th January, 1989 at 10a.m.”

The petitioners in response of the aforesaid notice claimed to have submitted admission forms and deposited tution fee in the college on 7th January, 1989.

5. The Principal of the College, by letter dated 18/19th January, 1989 (Annexure XI to the Counter-affidavit of Principal) warned the three Heads of the Department of Agriculture Faculty not to flout the usual norm of number of seats and the merit of the student to make out of the way of admission and sent the copy of the letter to the Office Superintendent of the College, to screen out the cases, if any, while forwarding forms to the University. By letter dated 7th February, 1989, the Principal of the College, returned the original forms of the petitioners to Sri S. R. Singh, Head of the Department of Animal Husbandary and Dairying as the

admission had been done by passing the usual norm of number of seats and merit and were extremely irregular and incorrect. Sri S. R. Singh wrote to the Principal that 15 seats have been allowed by the University, but initially the admission of six students was made which was increased to eight in the light of increased facilities available in the Department and after the lapse of several years more facilities are available and two more students could be admitted. He asserted in this letter that as incharge of the Department, he enjoyed the delegated powers of the Principal in the matter of admission and enclosed the admission forms with his letter dated 14-2-1989.

6. The Principal of the College then passed the impugned order dated 2nd March, 1989 and held that since the recommendations for admission were not in order and were based on some extraneous consideration, it was not possible to entertain their admission. Consequently, Sri S. R. Singh, the Head of the Department, informed the petitioners by the letter dated 7th March, 1989 accordingly.

7. The college authorities had not increased the number of seats of the students from 8 to 10 in the Department of Animal Husbandary and Dairying at any stage. The admission for the Session 1988-89 had already been done by the Admission Committee of eight students. The Admission Committee had also prepared a waiting list. There was no justification for the Head of the Department Sri S. R. Singh (Head of the Department of Animal Husbandary and Dairying of the College) to issue the said notice dated 2nd January, 1989 for admission of two more students. Moreover, there was no point to issue the notice for making two more admissions in the M.Sc. (Ag.) 1st Part (Animal Hysbandary and Dairying) in middle of session. Further the admission of the petitioners in response to the notice dated 2nd January, 1989 was not done by the Admission Committee. The claim of the candidates of the waiting list has also been ignored in admitting the petitioners. The Principal, therefore, rightly refused the admission of the petitioners because the norms of number of seats and merit had been flouted and bypassed by Sri S. R. Singh, Head of the Department of

Animal Husbandary and Dairying of the College in inducting the petitioners to the M.Sc. (Ag.) Parti, classes for the session 1988-89. Dr. B. B. Singh, Vice Principal of the College in his counter affidavit has stated that Sri S. R. Singh with a view to give undue favour to the petitioners manipulated in getting fees deposited in the college”. The deposit of fees in the college by the petitioners under the circumstances of the case, does not confer any right and is of no help to the petitioners.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next urged that the admission of Sri Vinod Kumar Singh was also refused by the Principal of the College by the impugned order dated 2nd March, 1989 in question and the writ petition preferred by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 5th February, 1990. His contention is that the similarly placed student Vinod Kumar Singh has been allowed admission by the Court and therefore, the petitioners he not denied the prosecution of their studies. We have perused the record of the Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 6759 of 1989 (Vinod Kumar Singh v. Vice-Chancellor, Purvanchal University, Jaunpur). Vinod Kumar Singh was admitted by the Admission Committee upon the vacancy caused by the departure of Mukesh Kumar Singh from the college hut the proper procedure was not followed in admitting him. It related to the admission in the Department of Horticulture of M.Sc. (1st Year). The Court while deciding the writ petition did not go into the merits of the case and Vinod Kumar Singh alone was not found to be at fault and was admitted against a vacancy.

9. Taking the case of the petitioners, the Head of the Department Sri S. R. Singh inducted them beyond the number of seats fixed by the college in the middle of session. The admission of the petitioners was not done by the Admission Committee. There was no vacancy in the Department of Animal Husbandary and Dairying.

10. Indra Sen Singh, petitioner No. 8 is the son of a lecturer in Udai Pralap Intermediate College, Varanasi. In the writ

petition it has wrongly been mentioned with a view to impute motive of illwill to the Principal of the College that the father of Indra Sen Singh who happens to be a lecturer in the same Institution is not on good terms with the Principal. Sanjai Kumar Singh, petitioner No. 1 is the son of Sri Kailash Narain Singh, the Office Superintendent of the College. From the close connection of the petitioners with the college staff, it is obvious from the facts of the case that the petitioners in collusion with Sri S. R. Singh, the Head of the Department, tried to be admitted in the college by manipulations as they had failed to get the admission in M.Sc. in regular course at the opening of the session. The case of the petitioner is therefore, not similar to that of Sri Vinod Kumar Singh of Writ Petn. No. 6759 of 1989 and they are not entitled to get any advantage because of the decision of the writ petition of Sri Vinod Kumar Singh. In our opinion any concession shown by the Court towards the petitioners, who got their admissions by manipulations in collusion with the Head of the Department concerned, would cause a heavy blow to fair play in the matter of admissions of students in the Institution. By the interim order dated 3rd April, 1989 the Court issued an interim mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the M.Sc. (Ag.) Part 1st Examination but the result was not to be declared. The result of the petitioners has not been declared. No orders have been passed on the application of the petitioners dated 6th February, 1990 in which the prayer had been made for directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners and to permit them to join M.Sc. (Ag.) Part II course and to appear in the said examination. The question of wastage of one year in the matter of studies of the petitioners does not arise because they were not found entitled to be admitted in the regular course in the beginning of the session in 1988-89.

11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

12. Petition dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information