Rajni Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the decision of the respondent no.3 Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU), Amritsar, Punjab cancelling the admission of the petitioner to the Master of Business Economics (MBE) course in the respondent no.2 New Delhi Institute of Management, New Delhi affiliated to the respondent no.3 GNDU. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent no.2 Institute and the respondent no.3 GNDU to allow her to pursue the course. 2010:DHC:5383

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition pleading that she had pursued the Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) course of the respondent no.4 Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi; that the said BBA is equivalent to graduation; that she completed her BBA in the year 2008 in first division and took the Management Aptitude Test (MAT) which only Graduates from a recognized University could take and got the invitation from the respondent no.2 Institute for admission to Master of Business Administration (MBA) course; that however on approaching the respondent no.2 Institute she was counseled to do the MBE course for which the respondent no.2 Institute was affiliated with GNDU, instead of MBA course; that the eligibility for admission to the MBE course offered by GNDU through the respondent no.2 Institute was graduation in any stream with at least 50% marks in aggregate; that on the said representations of the respondent no.2 Institute, she took admission in the MBE course and made payment of `1,45,000/- being the fee for two semesters of six months each as demanded. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of admission in the respondent no.2 Institute, she submitted all the certificates/documents for verification as demanded. The said MBE course commenced in August 2009 and the petitioner claims to have appeared in the first semester end term examination held in November/December 2009. While the result of the said examination was awaited, the second semester classes were commenced and which also the petitioner claims to have attended from the communication dated 7th April, 2010 of GNDU to the respondent no.2 Institute to the effect that the Graduation Degree of the petitioner was not recognized by GNDU and hence the admission of the petitioner was cancelled.

3. The representations of the petitioner having not met with any success, the present writ petition was filed which came up before this Court first on 15th July, 2010. Finding no explanation as to why the petitioner was admitted, fee of `1,45,000/- was received, roll number allotted for the first semester end term examination and allowed to attend classes of the second semester if not eligible for admission to the course, notice of the writ petition was issued.

4. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent no.2 Institute, GNDU as well as by the respondent no.4 Jamia Hamdard University.

5. The counsel for the petitioner besides the aforesaid has argued that as per the documents produced by GNDU, the Equivalence Committee of the GNDU in its meeting held on 29th March, 2010 only has taken a decision that the BBA Degree through Distance Education from Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi obtained by the petitioner, was not recognized as equivalent to BBA Degree of the GNDU. It is contended that the said th much prior thereto in August 2009.

6. The counsel for the respondent no.4 Jamia Hamdard University has supported the petitioner and has invited attention to the eligibility criteria of respondent no.3 GNDU for various courses of study and where for the MBE course, the criteria laid down is Bachelor’s Degree with 50% marks in aggregate or equivalent examination. Attention is also invited to the eligibility criteria for Master of Science (M.Sc.) in the Faculty of Life Science where the eligibility criteria prescribed is Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) Degree from GNDU or any other examination recognized equivalent thereto by respondent no.3 GNDU. It is contended that for the purposes of the MBE course, the only criteria is a Bachelor’s Degree, not necessarily from GNDU and not required to be equivalent to the Bachelor’s Degree of GNDU. It is contended that the BBA Degree of respondent no.4 Jamia Hamdard University’s Distance Learning, is a Bachelor’s Degree which fits into the scheme of 10+2+3 of education. Attention is also invited to the eligibility prescribed by respondent no.3 GNDU for Bachelor of Law (LLB) course where Open Universities and Distance Learning Courses are expressly excluded. It is contended that there is no such exclusion while laying down the criteria for MBE course.

7. The counsel for GNDU has at the outset contended that it is not as if contended that as soon as the respondent no.2 Institute forwarded the certificates/documents of the petitioner for the purposes of issuance of a roll number for the first semester end term examination, a doubt was raised as to the eligibility of the petitioner and the petitioner was not being issued the roll number; however the petitioner furnished an affidavit dated 16th November, 2009 disclosing knowledge that verification of her eligibility for admission to the course was still pending and that in the event of being permitted to take the examinations scheduled in November/December 2009, she would take the said examinations at her own risk and will be responsible for consequences thereof and the roll number to be issued to her was to be provisional. The petitioner in the affidavit further expressly agreed that if the certificates/documents submitted by her are rejected at the stage of equivalency, her admission may be cancelled and she will have no claim against the University. The petitioner has not controverted having submitted the said affidavit.

8. In my view, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for the reason alone of having not disclosed before this Court about furnishing the said affidavit and for the reason of concealing the same. The law that a litigant, particularly in an equitable jurisdiction ought to make a full disclosure and can be disentitled to the relief if found to have practiced concealment, need not be restated. The petitioner in the present case inconsistent therewith. There was no reason for the petitioner to be shocked in April 2010 since she was well aware that her eligibility was under consideration.

9. It thus transpires that the petitioner within a couple of months of her admission to the respondent no.2 Institute, was aware of the doubts raised by GNDU as to her eligibility for admission and chose to take a chance and pursue the course, rather than leaving the same. Though the petitioner has pleaded about having cleared MAT and having initially approached the respondent no.2 Institute for admission to MBA course but the details/particulars with respect thereto are not available.

10. GNDU in its counter affidavit itself has referred to A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 2 SCC 667 laying down that the Court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the Regulations made by the University itself –that would be destructive of rule of law. Reference is also made to Mahatma Gandhi University Vs. Gis Jose (2009) 1 RSJ 438 (Supreme Court) to contend that the petitioner cannot be shown any sympathy or given benefit of the illegality committed by the Institute in making wrong and illegal admission. Reliance is also placed on Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. Vs. Ku. Seena Peethambaran (2003) 4 RSJ 566 (Supreme claiming any relief qua the University.

11. The counsel for GNDU during the course of hearing has also referred to Poonam Mohindru Vs. Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala (2003) 4 RSJ 535 where a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to embark upon an enquiry to determine the equivalence of Degree and which subject clearly is the domain of the Expert Body.