In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
1- Civil Writ Petition No.2335/2009 Mohd. Asif & (7) Ors Versus Raj. Tech. Univ. & Ors 2- Civil Writ Petition No.2336/2009 Shalvi Gupta & (2) Ors Versus Raj. Tech. Univ. & Ors Date of Order : 16/04/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. HP Singh, for petitioners. Mr. AK Bhargava, for respondent University Mr. Rajvir Sharma, for respondent-Institutions Both the petitions involving identical issue were heard together at joint request of parties and are being decided by common order.
CWP-2335/2009 was jointly filed by nine petitioners but Sunil Yadav withdrew his name from the array of petitioners, which was deleted; and now there remains only eight petitioners who are students of MBA on being admitted for academic session-2008-09 against 15% management quota in respondent-5 (Institute of Engineering & Technology, Alwar).
At the same time, CWP-2336/2009 has been jointly filed by three petitioners who took admission in MBA against management quota in respondent-5 (Alwar Institute of Engineering & Technology). However, their common grievance is that despite being eligible for seeking admission to MBA in academic session 2008-09, respondent-University took technical plea that since institutions failed to send their respective forms on or before due date fixed, as per last counselling having taken place on 19/11/2008, they could not be considered to be eligible to participate in the course which they joined in respective institutions.
However, it has not been disputed by respondent-University that the petitioners were eligible to join MBA course and about affiliation of both the Institutions where petitioners are undergoing their MBA course.
Respondent University vide its notice dt.12/11/2008 published in news papers invited applications for direct admission to MBA course against vacant seats to be completed on or before 19/11/2008 taking note thereof, institutions also published their notice in daily news paper dt.15/11/2008 (Ann.2) notifying last date of submission of application as 18/11/2008 and stipulating to complete all procedure for admission upto 21/11/08. Pursuant to which, Institutes (respondent-5) constituted admission committee for taking direct admission in MBA-Ist Year on drop out/vacant seats of Institute for academic session 2008-09 vide order dt. 15/11/2008 (Ann.3). The admission committee (supra) prepared list of students admitted directly in MBA-1st Year against 15% management quota and vacant drop-out seats, which was sent to the Co-Ordinator RMAT-2008 of the University vide letter dt.21/11/2008 (Ann.4).
It is relevant to mention that in the list appended to letter dt.21/11/2008 (Ann.4),names of present petitioners are mentioned against 15% management quota. As alleged, when respondents had not taken note of list sent by respective institution against 15% management quota; a letter was sent by respective institution vide letter dt.23/02/2009 (Ann.8) that letter of admission be issued to the students having been admitted by their institutions against management quota, who are doing studies alongwith others permitting them to appear in the examination.
At this stage, When petitioners were not permitted to appear in the examination of MBA Part-I, they approached this Court by way of instant petitions, and under interim orders of this Court, by a passage of time, they appeared in MBA Semesters-I, II, & III examinations on provisional basis and result of their participation in respective examinations has not yet been declared which have kept them in dark to know about final fate of their course of MBA despite having joined in academic session 2008-09.
Counsel for petitioners submits that atleast petitioner cannot be said to be at fault and if there is any delay in sending their names to the University by respective institutions, they may take action against institutions, but present petitioners on being found eligible to seek admission to MBA course against 15% management quota, could not be deprived of their right enjoined U/Art.14 of the Constitution; and such decision taken by University in not permitting them to appear in the examination of MBA course merely on account of such technicality, was ill-founded and is also in violation of principles of natural justice.
Respondents-1 to 4 and respondent-5 have separately filed reply. In their reply, respondents-1 to 4 have inter-alia averred that admissions to MBA course are carried out through management quota against 15% seats and through RMAT counselling on remaining seats. However, last date for admission from direct quota was 20/11/2008 and the institutions submitted list of Nine/Three candidates against vacant seats of RMAT counselling on 22/11/2008; and list of candidates given admission through counselling by direct admission & management was forwarded to Controller of Examination of the University for their enrollment.
Counsel for respondent-University further submits that the institutes submitted complete list of admitted candidates on 08/12/2008, which included three new names replacing existing three candidates in management quota and since petitioners were given admission after the date notified by University, hence they were ot permitted to participate in the examination.
This fact has been disputed by respondent-5 in its reply separately filed wherein it has been inter-alia averred that for direct admission in compliance of notice dt.12/11/2008 (Ann.1) issued by University for direct admission, respondent institutions also notified their notice through publication in daily news papers in pursuance whereof, direct admissions were made through management quota in terms of notices (supra) and the list of such candidates having been admitted against 15% management quota including the petitioners was also sent vide letter dt.21/11/2008 (Ann.4); and the list appended to letter (Ann.4) discloses names of present petitioner having been admitted against 15% management quota.
This Court would like to observe that apart from averments made by respondents-1 to 4 in their reply that there was change in names of candidates admitted under management quota seats in the list sent on 21/11/2008 (Ann.4) but nothing has been placed on record to show in regard to the list initially received by University in regard to names sent against 15% management quota and as to who are those who were replaced when later list was sent on 08/12/08 in absence whereof, list having been sent by respondent Institutions placed on record by petitioner in their respective petition including the list appended to letter dt.21/11/2008 (Ann.4) sent to the University has to be accepted at its face value.
That apart, it being only a technical plea which could in no manner be countenanced against present petitioners who cannot be said to be at fault, for their rightful claim to pursue MBA course in which they were admitted under 15% management quota. It is not the case of respondents that either of petitioners were in-eligible or not fulfilling the standards/ guidelines laid down by respondent University for direct admission to MBA course in absence whereof, plea having been taken by University in holding petitioners in-eligible to appear in MBA Part-I in no manner can be held to be justified.
However, Counsel for University lastly pointed out that time & again, institutions are admitting the students after last cut off dates prescribed even against management quota and if such admissions are being regularized by the Courts at a later stage, they will not be able to maintain discipline. There might be some merit in the contention being advanced by Counsel for the University but this Court is of the considered opinion that it is always open for respondent-University to take action permissible under law against such institutions which are alleged to have been indulged in violating requisite standards/ guidelines while admitting students even after cut off date prescribed; but for the faults and under the garb of violation of guidelines being committed by the institutions, the students cannot be saddled with holding them in-eligible to appear in their respective courses.
Consequently, writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Respondent-University is directed to declare result of participation of petitioners in MBA examinations in which they appeared under interim orders of this Court within one week from the receipt of certified copy of this order and if they are declared failed in any paper of their respective examination, they may be permitted to appear in back/remand papers examinations as per their respective result, and be further permitted to pursue their studies as per their scheme of MBA course. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p.8/
2335CW09RsrApr16MBAExm(2).doc