Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors  INSC 21 (18 January 1989)
M.M. (J) Dutt, M.M. (J) Natrajan, S. (J)
1989 AIR 823 1989 SCR (1) 230 1989 SCC (1) 399 JT 1989 (1) 177 1989 SCALE
Colleges--Admission to Engineering Col- leges-B.E. degree course--Admission
to--Candidate--Diploma holder Administrator/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.
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.
appellant challenged the aforesaid order of with- drawal of his admission,
before the High Court unsuccessful- ly.
the appeal to this Court, the objections that were 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.
the Appeal, the Court,
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.
When the appellant made the application beyond the last date, his application
should not have been entertained.
the application was entertained presumably on the basis of the resolution of
the Syndicate dated December
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.88 of the Rajas- than High Court in Writ
Petition No. 521 of 1988.
Kr. Jain for the Appellant.
and R.B. Mehrotra for the Respondents.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. Special leave is granted. Heard
learned Counsel for both parties.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
these precedents in view, Shri A.C. Singhvi, Instructor, may be admitted to
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.
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.
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:
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:
Year: 40 per cent of marks.
Year: 60 per cent of marks.
Year: 100 per cent of marks.
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
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.
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 to
acquire higher knowledge which may be used in he 'inter- est of the institution
and which may raise the standard of teaching.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
after considering all facts and circumstances and also the objections by the
office to the admission of a candi- 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,  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
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.
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.
appeal is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.