http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: ASHOK CHAND SINGHVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1989

BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR  823            1989 SCR  (1) 230  1989 SCC  (1) 399        JT 1989 (1)   177  1989 SCALE  (1)166

ACT:     Professional  Colleges--Admission  to  Engineering  Col- leges-B.E.  degree course--Admission  to--Candidate--Diploma holderAdministrator/Instructor   in    engineering--Conceals nothing     from     university-Granted     admission     by authorities--Later admission cancelled on account of mistake committed by the authorities--Held candidate cannot be  made to  suffer for mistake of authorities--Statutes,  rules  and regulations of University--To be clear and unambiguous.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant was a diploma holder and was serving as an Administrator/Instructor  since 1976 in an Engineering  Col- lege. In May 1987 he submitted an application to the Univer- sity for study leave for three years to enable him to prose- cute his studies in the B.E. Engineering Degree Course.  The Study Leave Committee recommended the case on August 3, 1987 and the Syndicate of the University accepted the recommenda- tion on August 14, 1987 and the appellant was granted  study leave for a period of 3 years with full pay. This order  was communicated  to  the  appellant on October  29,  1987.  The appellant submitted an application on November 14, 1987  for admission  on the B.E. Degree Course. This  application  was made after the last date for admission in the general  seats had  expired. The Officer-in-Charge, Admissions raised  cer- tain  objections to the effect that the appellant  submitted the  application after expiry of the last date and  that  he had obtained less than 60% marks in the Diploma  Examination passed by him. The Dean considered the objections and recom- mended the case of the appellant for admission to the  Vice- Chancellor. Thereafter the order for admission of the appel- lant  was  issued by the Dean, the appellant  deposited  the fees and joined classes from January 16, 1988.     On  February 18, 1988 the appellant was communicated  an order dated January 20, 1988 of the Dean directing that  his admission was put in abeyance until further orders.     The  appellant challenged the aforesaid order  of  with- drawal of his admission, before the High Court unsuccessful- ly. 231     In  the appeal to this Court, the objections  that  were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

raised  to the admission of the appellant were that: (1)  he had not secured 60% of marks which was the minimum  require- ment  for  admission, and (2) that he should not  have  been admitted after the last date. The admission it was submitted was illegal. Allowing the Appeal, the Court,     HELD:  1.  The appellant had secured more  than  60%  of marks  in the aggregate in the Diploma Examination  and  was not disqualified for admission in that regard. [235B]     2.  When the appellant made the application  beyond  the last date, his application should not have been entertained. But the application was entertained presumably on the  basis of the resolution of the Syndicate dated December 13,  1970. The  appellant  also brought to the notice of the  Dean  the said  resolution and also the implementation of the same  by admitting seven teacher-candidates. [236E-F]     3.  Although the admission to the B.E. degree course  is governed by statutes of the University and admission  rules, the Syndicate’s resolution dated December 13, 1970 had  also been  kept alive. Neither the Dean, nor the  Vice-Chancellor was  aware of the true position, viz whether the  resolution had become infructuous in view of the statutes and admission rules.  The University should have revoked the said  resolu- tion to obviate any ambiguity in the matter of admission  or included  the same in the statutes as part of the  admission rules. [236C-E]     4.  It  is the duty of the University to  see  that  its statutes,  rules and resolutions are clear  and  unambiguous and do not mislead bona fide candidates. [236D]     5.  When after considering all facts  and  circumstances and also the objections by the office to the admission of  a candidate, the ViceChancellor directs the admission of  such a  candidate such admission could not be said to  have  been made through mistake. [236G]     6.  Assuming  that the appellant  was  admitted  through mistake,  the appellant not being at fault, it is  difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission of the appel- lant. [236H]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  183  of 1989. 232     From  the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.88 of the  Rajas- than High Court in Writ Petition No. 521 of 1988. Sushil Kr. Jain for the Appellant. C.M. Lodha and R.B. Mehrotra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     DUTT, J. Special leave is granted. Heard learned Counsel for both parties.     This  appeal  is directed against the  judgment  of  the Rajasthan  High Court whereby the High Court  dismissed  the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of  the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering of the Jodhpur  Universi- ty,  putting in abeyance the admission of the  appellant  in the B .E. Degree Course till further orders.     The appellant is a diploma-holder and is serving in  the 1 N.M. Engineering College (Faculty of Engineering), Jodhpur since 1976 as an Administrator/Instructor. In may, 1987, the appellant  submitted an application to the Study Leave  Com- mittee  of  the University of Jodhpur for  study  leave  for three years enabling the appellant to prosecute his  studies in  the  B.E. Degree Course. On August 3,  1987,  the  Study

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

Leave  Committee recommended the case of the  appellant  for the  grant of study leave and on August 14, 1987 the  Syndi- cate of the University accepted the said recommendation  and granted  study leave to the appellant for a period of  three years  with full pay. Pursuant to the leave granted  to  the appellant,  he made an application on November 14, 1987  for admission in the B .E. Degree Course.     At this stage, it will be pertinent to refer to a  reso- lution  dated  September 21, 1970 passed by the  Faculty  of Engineering recommending that the teachers of the University should  be  granted leave so as to enable them to  join  the B.E.  Degree  Course as a regular candidate on a  full  time basis.  The  said resolution was accepted  by  the  Academic Council  of the University on March 25, 1970 and the  Syndi- cate  in  its turn approved the resolution of  the  Academic Council.     According to the appellant, the above resolution of  the Syndicate  was acted upon and, as a matter of fact,  certain teachers  of  the University were admitted  to  B.E.  Degree Course.  In  his application dated November  14,  1987,  the appellant specifically mentioned the 233 names  of seven teacher candidates who had been admitted  to the various Departments of the Engineering College in pursu- ance of the above resolution of the Syndicate and the policy of  the University. The case of the appellant is that it  is the practice of the University to give admissions to  teach- ers by creating extra seats in addition to general seats.     The  appellant made the application for admission  after he  had been communicated with the resolution of the  Syndi- cate granting leave on the recommendation of the Study Leave Committee. Admittedly, the application was made on  November 14,  1987 after the last date for admission in  the  general seats  had  expired. Accordingly to the  appellant,  he  was communicated  with  the decision of the  Syndicate  granting study  leave to him on October 29, 1987 and soon  thereafter he made the application for admission. It is the case of the appellant that in view of the practice of the University, as the teachers who are granted study leave are admitted by the creation of extra seats, the question of making applications after  the last date for admission in the general  seats  is irrelevant.     Be that as it may, the application of the appellant  was forwarded  by the Professor and Head of the  Mechanical  and Engineering Department and the Dean, Faculty of Engineering, to  the  Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor  referred  the application  back  to the Dean observing that the  Dean  was competent to make admissions. Certain objections were raised by  the Officer-in-Charge, Admissions, including the  objec- tion  that the appellant had obtained less than 60 per  cent marks  in  the Diploma Examination passed by him.  The  Dean considered  the said objections and recommended the case  of the appellant for admission to the Vice-Chancellor with  the following observation:               "However, there is another aspect of this case               which  deserves consideration. The  University               has  in the past, allowed the  teacher  candi-               dates  of this faculty, securing less than  60               per cent marks in their Diploma  Examinations,               admission to B.E. Course. This was perhaps  to               encourage  the Faculty Staff to improve  their               qualifications so that they serve the  faculty               in a better capacity.                        With  these precedents in view,  Shri               A.C.  Singhvi, Instructor, may be admitted  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             B.E. Degree course as a very special case." 234     The Vice-Chancellor, after considering the facts of  the case, accepted the recommendation made by the Dean. Thereaf- ter,  on  January 16, 1988, the order for admission  of  the appellant  was issued by the Dean, Faculty  of  Engineering, admitting  the  appellant in B.E.  Second  Year  Engineering Course. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant  deposited the  requisite fees on the same date and joined the  classes from January 16, 1988. The appellant was, however,  communi- cated  on February 9, 1988 with an order dated  January  20, 1988  of the Dean directing that the  appellant’s  admission was put in abeyance until further orders.     Being aggrieved by the said order dated January 20, 1988 of the Dean, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court  and, as stated already, the High Court dismissed  the writ petition. Hence this appeal.     The first objection that was raised to the admission  of the appellant was that the appellant had not secured 60  per cent  of marks which was the minimum requirement for  admis- sion. Indeed, the appellant also stated that he had obtained only 59.72 per cent of marks in his Diploma Examination.  It appears that both the University and the appellant proceeded on  the  assumption that the appellant had  secured  in  the Diploma  Examination less than 60 per cent of marks.  It  is the case of the appellant that though for teacher-candidates it  was not necessary to secure 60 per cent of marks in  the Diploma  Course yet, according to the computation  mentioned in the Admission Circular, the appellant had secured 60  per cent of marks. The Admission Circular provides as follows:               "It is further provided that no such candidate               who  has  secured less than 60% marks  in  the               aggregate in the diploma examination shall  be               eligible  for admission to this programme  and               the  admission  will be made strictly  on  the               basis  of merit determined by taking the  per-               centage of marks obtained at the three diploma               examinations passed as follows:               -- I Year: 40 per cent of marks.               -- II Year: 60 per cent of marks.               -- III Year: 100 per cent of marks.               235               The  candidates must submit, along with  their               application,  true copies of marks  sheets  of               all the three diploma examinations."     The appellant secured 21.54 (as per 40 per cent  weight- age), 36.27 (as per 60 per cent weightage) and 65.18 (as per 100  per cent weightage). The total comes to 122.99  out  of 200.  As  per the admission rules, this works out  to  about 61.5  per  cent.  Thus, it appears that  the  appellant  had secured  more than 60 per cent of marks in the aggregate  in the Diploma Examination and was not disqualified for  admis- sion in that regard.     The  next question is whether the appellant should  have been  admitted after the last date. We have referred to  the resolution  of the Academic Council and the  Syndicate  with regard to the admission of teacher-candidates. It is, howev- er, the case of the University that the said resolution  has no  effect  whatsoever and admissions are  governed  by  the statutes of the University. There is much controversy wheth- er in the past the teacher-candidates were admitted in extra seats  created over and above the general seats. The  appel- lant has referred to certain cases where the  teacher-candi- dates  were  admitted  in additional seats  created  by  the University with a view to giving the teachers an opportunity

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

to acquire higher knowledge which may be used in he  ’inter- est  of the institution and which may raise the standard  of teaching.     It may be that the previous policy of the University  is not in force and the admissions are governed strictly by the statutes  or the admission rules framed thereunder.  In  the objections  raised by the Officer in-Charge, Admissions,  it was specifically pointed out that the seats were limited and all admissions were made strictly on the basis of merit list drawn amongst all eligible candidates, and that no preferen- tial treatment could be given to anyone including  employees of the University (non-teaching/teaching) in any  discipline in any Faculty. In spite of that objection, the Dean  recom- mended for the admission of the appellant. The Vice-Chancel- lor also considered the office note, but approved the recom- mendation  of the Dean. In consequence of such  approval  by the Vice-Chancellor, the appellant was admitted.     It  is urged by Mr. Mehrotra, learned Counsel  appearing on  behalf of the respondents, that the appellant could  not be admitted and his admission was illegal. There may be some force in the contention of the learned Counsel, but when all facts were before the Uni- 236 versity  and nothing was suppressed by the appellant,  would it be proper to penalise the appellant for no fault of  his? The  admission of the appellant was not made  through  inad- vertence  or mistake, but after considering even all  objec- tions to the same, as raised by the said  Officer-in-Charge, Admissions, in his note. The appellant was communicated with the  decision of the Dean as approved by the  ViceChancellor admitting him to the Second Year B .E. Course. The appellant deposited  the requisite fees and started attending  classes when  he was told that his admission was directed to be  put in  abeyance until further orders without disclosing to  him any reason whatsoever.     It  is curious that although the admission to  the  B.E. Degree  Course of the University is governed by statutes  of the  University and admission rules, the said resolution  of the  Syndicate  dated December 13, 1970 has also  been  kept alive. Neither the Dean nor the ViceChancellor was where  of the true position, namely, as to whether the said resolution had  become  infructuous  in view of the  statutes  and  the admission rules. A teacher-candidate is likely to be  misled by the said resolution. It is the duty of the University  to see  that its statutes, rules and resolutions are clear  and unambiguous  and  do not mislead bona fide  candidates.  The University should have revoked the said resolution in  order to  obviate  any  ambiguity in the matter  of  admission  or included  the same in the statutes as part of the  admission rules.     When the appellant made the application beyond the  last date, his application should not have been entertained.  But the application was entertained, presumably on the basis  of the  said  resolution of the Syndicate. The  appellant  also brought  to the notice of the Dean the said  resolution  and also  the  implementation  of the same  by  admitting  seven teacher-candidates.     It is submitted on behalf of the University that it  was through  mistake  that the appellant was  admitted.  We  are unable to accept the contention. It has been already noticed that  both the Dean and the Vice-Chancellor  considered  the objections  raised by the Officer-inCharge, Admissions,  and thereafter  direction for admitting the appellant was  made. When after considering all facts and circumstances and  also the  objections by the office to the admission of  a  candi-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

date,  the Vice-Chancellor directs the admission of  such  a candidate,  such  admission could not be said to  have  been made through mistake. Assuming that the appellant was admit- ted through mistake, the appellant not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission  of the  appellant. In this connection, we may refer to a  deci- sion of 237 this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, [1986] Suppl. SCC 740. In that case, the appel- lants were admitted to certain private engineering  colleges for the B.E. Degree Course, although they were not  eligible for  admission. In that case, this Court dismissed  the  ap- peals preferred by the students whose admissions were subse- quently  cancelled and the order of cancellation was  upheld by  the  High Court. At the same time, this Court  took  the view that the fault lay with the engineering colleges  which admitted the appellants and that there was no reason why the appellants  should suffer for the sins of the management  of these engineering colleges. Accordingly, this Court  allowed the  appellants to continue their studies in the  respective engineering  colleges in which they were granted  admission. The  same  principle which weighed with this Court  in  that case should also be applied in the instant case. The  appel- lant was not at fault and we do not see why he should suffer for  the  mistake committed by the Vice-Chancellor  and  the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering.     In  the circumstances, we set aside the judgment of  the High  Court  and also the impugned order dated  January  20, 1988  of the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering  and  direct that the admission of the appellant will continue. The  appeal is allowed. There will, however, be no order  as to costs. N.V.K.                                  Appeal allowed.                                 1 238