Posted On by &filed under High Court, Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur.


Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Vinod Nair vs Janardan Rai Nagar & Ors on 9 August, 2010
                                   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/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.163 seconds.