1
(1)-S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4770/2010
Vinod Nair Vs. Janardan Rai Nagar University & Ors.
(2)-S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4771/2010
Bahadur Singh Vs. Janardan Rai Nagar University & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 9.8.2010
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J.
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Purohit, for the respondents.
The Board of Management of the Janardan Rai Nagar
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Udaipur framed
regulations of the University as per that admission to Master of
Physiotherapy Course is required to be made by holding an
entrance examination and by including 25% marks of under-
graduation examinations and 25% marks from the personal
interview.
For the educational session of 2007-2008 entrance
examination was conducted and regular admissions were given
to selected students. The petitioners who were working with the
University as Lecturers in the College of Physiotherapy were
admitted in the course of Master of Physiotherapy under an
order dated 21.2.2008, though, they did not face the entrance
2
test. The petitioners also qualified Ist year examination of the
Course concerned, however, on 28.5.2009 vice-chancellor of the
University cancelled their admission provisionally and that was
made absolute by another order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the
Registrar. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 2.3.2010 and
28.5.2010 these petitions for writ are preferred.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the petitioners were admitted to the course concerned by
the University in the year 2008 and thereafter, the petitioners
have undergone the entire course and qualified Ist year
examination, as such, there is no just reason to cancel their
admissions. It is also asserted that after making regular
admissions to the course concerned, the principle of estoppal
warrants to stop the University from taking the action impugned.
To substantiate the contentions reliance is placed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of Apex Court in
Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC
1075).
A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of
the respondent University stating therein that the petitioners in
view of regulations for the Master of Physiotherapy degree
course with the University are not at all eligible to continue as
3
such. The petitioners never faced the selection process and they
were not at all selected for admission to Master of Physiotherapy
course, therefore, cancellation of their admission, suffer from no
error.
It is also pointed out that on 6.12.2007, a decision was
taken by the competent committee of the University not to
permit any employee of the University for admission in the
course of Master of Physiotherapy. In the decision aforesaid,
Principal of the Institution Shri Shailendra Mehta was also a
party. Despite that, alongwith the petitioners, he too was
admitted with the post-graduation course in Physiotherapy.
Learned counsel for the respondent University urged
that admission was given to the petitioner in view of a note
made by the Registrar of the University under the instructions of
the then Vice-chancellor to the fact that the teachers, who have
already been admitted to the course be allowed to continue as
such. The note aforesaid is dated 13.12.2008 and as such, the
admission to the petitioners subsequent thereto is illegal. Certain
facts are also stated in the reply to the writ petition regarding
the wrongs made in wholesome by some officers of the
University while making admissions in the course of Master of
Physiotherapy.
4
No rejoinder to the reply has been filed by the
respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners accepted the position that the petitioners did not face
the process of selection as prescribed under the regulations,
meaning thereby, that they did not face the entrance
examination. The fact that the petitioners are in employment of
the respondent is also not in dispute. It is really strange that the
petitioners, who were part of teaching staff of the University,
knowing it well that they have not participated in entrance test
applied for admission in the course concerned and got
themselves admitted. While making admission to public courses,
the Universities created under or by a statute are suppose to act
fairly and in just manner, but in the instant matter, the benefit
extended to the petitioners is same thing extra being absolutely
in contravention of the regulations for admission. It is pertinent
to note that the Board of Management of the University decided
for not admitting its employees for post-graduation course in
Physiotherapy, despite of that the Vice-chancellor made a note
contrary and granted admission to the petitioners against the
policy applicable for making such admissions. Counsel for the
5
petitioner failed to point out availability of any such power to the
Vice-chancellor. It is further relevant to mention here that the
note made by the Registrar in pursuant to certain instructions
given by the Vice-chancellor dated 3.12.2007 is and to the effect
that the admission now made be cancelled. In such
circumstances, even if it is assumed that the Vice-chancellor is
having some power to take a decision contrary to the resolution
of the Board of Management, then too admission of the
petitioners is not valid.
So far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the University should be estopped from
cancelling the admission is concerned, suffice it to mention that
the petitioners knowing it well that they were not eligible for
admission to the concerned course, obtained admission by
adopting wrong means, thus, the doctrine of estoppal cannot be
extended to the petitioners who themselves are part of a fraud
played while getting admission in the course.
In view of whatever said above, the petitions for writ
fail, thus are dismissed.
(GOVIND MATHUR)J.
RM/
