The Allahabad High Court has set aside a Single Judge order dated 10.01.2024, by which compensation of Rs 50,000/- was granted to respondent-petitioner for non-admission to M.A in Women Studies for the Academic Session 2022-23.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budwar passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by University Of Allahabad and Another.
These appeals are directed against the judgement dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Single Judge whereby though the Single Judge set aside the impugned action of the University, on finding that the relief as sought cannot be granted to the petitioner, ordered for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs 50,000/-.
The petition was filed by the petitioner Ajay Singh aggrieved by the letter/order dated 27.04.2023 along with the Resolution 9 dated 03.06.2022 approved by the Academic Council of the University in its meeting dated 25.06.2022.
By the said order, the candidature of the petitioner for seeking admission in the Second Post Graduate Course pertaining to M.A in Women Studies for the Academic Session 2022-23 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the criteria laid down by the University.
The petitioner, who had LL.B & LL.M degrees from the University, pursuant to an entrance test notification qua Post Graduate Admission issued by the University for academic session 2022-23 applied for admission in M.A Women Studies Course offered by the University.
For the course applied by the petitioner, the Brochure (Information & Guidelines) issued by the University provided under Clause 1.2 that the candidate was required to satisfy the additional condition provided under Clause 1.3.8.
The additional condition provided that where a prospective candidate claims genuine interest in pursuing studies in a post graduate programme and presents credible evidence in affirmation of such genuine interest, he may apply for second Post Graduate Examination subject to the condition that he must have passed first Post Graduate Exam by more than 60% marks and is granted permission by Vice Chancellor of the University.
Based on the said eligibility indicated in the Brochure, the petitioner took the entrance test and was awarded 141.1 marks. Despite getting the highest marks in his category i.e O.B.C, the petitioner was not accorded admission. The petitioner made a representation to the University. A response was given on 29.11.2022 informing the petitioner that he was found ineligible by the Admission Committee in its meeting held on 03.06.2022 wherein under Agenda 9, it was resolved that candidates who have already passed post graduate in any subject may apply for admission in any other subject of the post graduate provided he has secured 9 grade points on a 10 point scale in the previous Post Graduate Course.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner questioned the validity of order dated 29.11.2022 by filing Writ, which came to be disposed of by order dated 16.02.2023 directing the Competent Authority to complete the process of admission in the course concerned as instructions were received that application for various other students along with the petitioner were still pending for consideration and that no admission for second Post Graduate course had been done till the date of passing of the order.
When the direction given by the Court was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed wherein on 27.4.2023, the Court was informed that the admissions have been finalized and that the Admission Committee in its meeting dated 03.06.2022 has resolved to alter the norms/criteria of admission in second Post Graduate course. The Academic Council of the University approved the norms/criteria on 25.06.2022 and as in terms of the revised criteria, the petitioner was not found eligible, his name did not figure in the list. Feeling aggrieved, the petition was filed.
The Court observed that,
The facts are not in dispute wherein the last date of making application seeking admission was 01.07.2022 and the criteria was approved by the Academic Council on 25.06.2022, the petitioner applied on 29.06.2022 and letter dated 29.07.2022 was written by the Registrar to the Director, Admissions indicating the change in criteria by the Academic Council on 25.06.2022.
The Single Judge found that the selection/admission process is commenced with the closing of online registration and payment fixed by the University i.e. 01.07.2022, the change in eligibility criteria was made by resolution No. 23/43 dated 25.06.2022 which fell within the last date of accepting the registration forms and payments, however, as the resolution was notified only on 29.07.2022 which was on a date anterior to the last date of acceptance of the registration forms, the amended criteria could not be applied to the case of the petitioner to non suit him.
There is no challenge to the finding recorded by the Single Judge regarding the commencement of the admission process w.e.f 01.07.2022.
It would be seen that the resolution passed by the Admission Committee on 03.06.2022 providing for change in eligibility criteria, came to be approved by the Academic Council on 25.06.2022. Once the Academic Council in its meeting dated 25.06.2022 approved the minutes of the meeting of the Admission Committee, the change suggested by the Admission Committee came into force. Nothing was brought on record before the Single Judge and even when specific submissions have been made regarding the requirement to notify the resolution of the Academic Council for the same coming into force, nothing has been produced before us to show such requirement under the Act and/or the Statutes of the University in so far as the eligibility criteria for grant of admission is concerned.
The Single Judge came to a categorical conclusion that the process for admission commenced with the closing of the online registration and payment fixed by the University i.e 01.07.2022 and once the Academic Council admittedly passed the resolution on 25.06.2022 i.e prior to the commencement of the admission process as held by the Single Judge, it cannot be said that the criteria was changed after the process had commenced. The Single Judge came to the conclusion pertaining to the resolution of the Academic Council having been notified on 29.07.2022 on account of the fact that the Registrar had sent a communication on 29.07.2022 to the Director Admissions for information and necessary action.
The Court further observed that,
The said communication by the Registrar to the Director Admissions by itself cannot be said to be a notification of the resolution passed by the Academic Council, the same essentially is an intimation requiring Director Admissions to act as per the approval given by the Academic Council and, therefore, the entire basis of the plea raised regarding changing the eligibility criteria after the admission process had commenced, though the Single Judge clearly came to the conclusion that the admission process had started on 01.07.2022, cannot be sustained.
Things would have been entirely different in case the communication dated 29.07.2022 was after the publication of the list of successful candidates/grant of admission to the petitioner based on the existing criteria and such admission was sought to be cancelled on account of revised criteria, which is not the case in hand.
So far as the judgement relied on by counsel for the respondent is concerned, there is no dispute pertaining to the principal as noticed by the Single Judge and not contested by counsel for the University as well. However, whether in the circumstances of the present case, only on account of intimation of the resolution of the Academic Council by the Registrar to the Director, Admissions, the resolution of the Academic Council can be said to have come into force so as to come to a conclusion that the criteria was changed after the admission process had commenced, which aspect herein before has been found against the petitioner and, therefore, the said judgement would have no application to the facts of the case.
“In view of the above discussion, the judgement impugned passed by the Single Judge cannot be sustained. Consequently Special Appeal filed by the University is allowed. The judgement dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the petitioner Ajay Kumar is dismissed”, the Court ordered.