JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri P. N. Saxena, Advocate, assisted by Sri I. S. Tomar, and Sri J. P. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate and Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondents. ,
2. These two writ petitions are directed against the same order passed by the Coordinator B.Ed Entrance Cell, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, dated 17th June, 2004 and dated 5.7.2004, whereby the University has cancelled the admission of the petitioners of the Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004 and has recommended the names of four new candidates for admission in B.Ed Course of 2004.
3. First writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management, Maa Sharda Mahavidyalay, Shambhoopur Gahji, Azamgarh through its Manager Sri Faujdar Singh. While second writ petition has been filed by four students, whose admissions have been cancelled under the aforesaid order.
4. The relevant fact giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:
Maa Sharda Mahavidyalay, Shambhoopur Gahji, Azamgarh is in institution affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. The said institution has been affiliated for running B.Ed Course, which is of one year duration, for the academic session 2003-2004.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the National Council for Teachers' Education has granted permission to the institution for in take of 100 students in the B.Ed Course. As against the 100 seats 50% of same are required to be filled on the basis of the entrance examination conduced by the University, while remaining 50% seats are required to be filled by the Management on its own, termed as Management quota.
6. Under the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999 it is provided that, if the candidates recommended by the University against 50% seats, which are to be filled on the basis of the entrance examination conduced by the University, do not join the course, an intimation shall be forwarded to the University with a request to send more names. In case within one week no new list of selected candidates is forwarded by the University, it will be open to the Management to grant admission to the students on their own provided the candidates fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria.
7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in pursuant to the entrance examination of the B.Ed. Course for the year 2003-2004 a list of 21 candidates was forwarded by the University for councilling to the institution. Out of the aforesaid 21 candidates, only 13 candidates turned up for councilling and obtained admission. The institution, accordingly, intimated the University about the aforesaid vacant 8 seats and demanded a fresh list of candidates against the said eight vacant seats. The University vide letter dated 17th May, 2004 again forwarded a list of 8 candidates to the institution.
8. As against the 8 candidates so recommended, only 4 candidates were admitted and 4 seats still remained vacant. The institution, accordingly, vide letter dated 26th May, 2004 informed the University about the aforesaid vacancies and requested for name of 4 candidates for admission. Since the University failed to recommend the names of candidates against 4 vacant seats within one weeks of receipt of the intimation, the institution proceeded to offer admission to the petitioner-students of Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004 on 3.6.2004. The aforesaid admission, according to petitioners, arc strictly in accordance with the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999.
9. The University, however, by means of the impugned order dated 17th June, 2004 has cancelled the admissions so granted by the institution in favour of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004 and by means of the letter dated 5th July, 2004 recommended the names of 4 candidates, on the basis of merit obtained by them in the entrance examination conducted by the University for admission.
10. On behalf of the petitioner-student it is contended that they had, been granted valid admission after following the procedure prescribed and the impugned order dated 17th June, 2004 has been passed in manifest violation of the principles of natural justice. The said order was never communicated to the petitioners and it was only on 19th August, 2004 the petitionrs were informed by the Principal of the institution that their admissions have been cancelled by the University and, therefore, they cannot be granted permission to appear in the examination. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter the University could not have cancelled the admission of the petitioner without notice/opportunity of hearing.
11. On behalf of the management the admission of the 4 petitioner-students has been justified on the basis of the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999 and it is contended that the action taken by the University is not justified.
12. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the institution had failed to intimate the B.Ed. Admission Cell in respect of the four vacancies, which remained available subsequent to the admission of the candidates in pursuance of the list dated 15.5.2004 and, therefore, the period of one week prescribed under the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999 did not start running and as such institution was not justified in granting admission to the petitioner-students of Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004. The decision taken by the University is strictly in accordance with the law and calls for no interference.
13. In order to appreciate the controversy giving rise to the present writ petition, reference may be had to the provisions of Government Order dated 14th December, 1999. The relevant paragraph 3 of the said Government Order are quoted herein below :
^^3-
ml fLFkfr ij f'k{kk ds {ks= esa futh {s= dh Hkkxhnkjh c<+k;s tkus ds iz;kstukFkZ futh {ks= dks izsfjr fd;s tkus vkSj mudk vf/kdkf/kd fuos'k gksus dh vko';drk ds mn~ns'; ds n`f"Vxr lE;d fopkjksijkUr jkT; ljdkj us ;g fu.kZ;
fy;k gS fd LofrRr iksf"kr ;kstuk ds rgr lapkfyr mfYyf[kr jkstxkjijd ikB~;Ñeksa esa izos'k gsrq fo'ofo|ky;ksa }kjk la;qDr izos'k ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij izFker% iwjs vH;FkhZ miyC/k djk;s tk;saxs A blds ckn Hkh ;fn dqN lhVsa fjDr jg tkrh gS rks v'kkldh; egkfo|ky;ksa ,o futh laLFkkvksa }kjk lEcfU/kr fo'ofo|ky;k dh bu fjfDr;ksa dks lwpuk nsrs gq;s vfrfjDr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh nwljh lwph dh ekax dh tk;sxh A ;fn nwljh lwph ,d lIrkg esa fo'ofo|ky;ksa }kjk miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS rks izos'k mlh lwph ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fn;k t;sxk vU;Fkk bu fjDr lhVksa ij v'kkldh; egkfo|ky; ,oa futh laLFkk;sa izos'sk vius Lrj lsa dj ldrh gS A ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ,slh fjDr lhVksa dsk v'kkldh; eggkfo|ky;ksa ,oa futh laLFkkvksa }kjk vius Lrj ls Hkjus dh fLFkfr esa izos'k dh U;wure vgZrk lgh j[kh tk;sxh tks egkfo|ky; }kn bl fufeRr fu/kkZfjr dh tk;s A**
14. It is not in dispute that on the asking of the institution, the University vide letter dated 15/17th May, 2004 forwarded a list of 8 candidates, for admission in B.Ed. Course, to the institution. In the letter so forwarded, it was specifically mentioned that information of the status of the seats within 50% quota (to be filled from the entrance examination conduced by the University) be intimated category-wise by 26th May, 2004 to the B.Ed. Pravesh Prakoshtha (B.Ed. Admission Cell). The said letter has been brought on record by the petitioner himself as Annexure-2 (in Writ Petition No. 29761 of 2004). The relevant portion of letter dated 15/17.5.2004 is quoted herein below :
^^izos'k gsrq fu/kkZfjr vfUre frfFk fnukad 24-5-2004 gS A ÑI;k izos'kksijkUr 50 izfr'kr lhVksa ij izfo"V Nk=ksa dh Js.khokj lwph fnukad 26-5-04 rd fuf'pr :i ls ch- ,M- izos'k izdks"B dks miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr djsa A izos'k gsrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk 'kqYd :- 14500&00 ¼:- pkSng gtkj ikp lkS ek=½ fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS A**
15. The institution alleges to have forwarded information to the Registrar of the University vide letter dated 26th May, 2004 intimating therein that as against the 8 names forwarded by the University vide letter dated 15/17.5.2004 only 4 candidates have been admitted, it was, therefore, requested that names of 4 other candidates be forwarded immediately for admission in B.Ed. Course.
16. It is an admitted position from the record that although the letter dated 26th May, 2004 was addressed to the Coordinator of the B.Ed. Pravesh Prakoshtha (B.Ed. Admission Cell)/Registrar. A copy of the same was not served in the Pravesh Prakoshtha office and on 2nd June, 2004, i.e., immediately on expiry of the period of 7 days, calculated from the date the letter dated 26th May, 2004 is said to have been served in the office of Registrar, the institution proceeded to grant admission to the petitioner-students of Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004 on its own.
17. The letter forwarded by the Institution dated 26th May, 2004 bears an endorsement of receipt dated 27.5.2004 signed by some employee in the office of the Registrar. The same was put on 2nd June, 2004 and was transmitted to the B.Ed. Pravesh Prakoshtha on 7th June, 2004 as is clear from the order dated 5th July, 2004 Annexure, 10 to the writ petition. It has further been noticed that on 3rd June, 2004 itself admission was granted by the institution without awaiting the names from the University on the basis of the entrance examination.
18. In such circumstances, the University by means of the order dated 17th June, 2004, cancelled the admission granted to the petitioner-students of Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004 and thereafter, the University by means of the order dated 5th July, 2004 recommended the names of 4 other candidates on the basis of the merit secured in the entrance examination.
19. From the facts, which have been noticed above, it is apparently clear that the admission granted to the petitioner-students by the institution on 3rd June, 2004 has been cancelled by the University within short period of 13 days on 17th June, 2004, on the ground that the institution had not intimated the vacant seats in compliance of the letter of the University dated 17th May, 2004 to the B. Ed. Pravesh Prakoshtha and deliberately a copy of the letter dated 26th May, 2004 was only got received in the office of the Registrar. Them is no inordinate delay on the part of the University in canceling the admission of the petitioner-students nor the petitioners can take benefit of any admission, granted in their favour by the institution, in the facts of the case.
20. The submission of the management that they had intimated the University about the vacant seats vide letter dated 26th May, 2004, which was received in the office of the Registrar on 27th May, 2004, and since the University failed to make recommendation within one week from the date of receipt of the said letter, the institution was justified in admitting the petitioner-students in the B.Ed. Course, cannot be legally sustained.
21. As already noticed above, the information of the vacant scats was required to be given by the institution to the B.Ed. Admission Cell only and which admittedly reached the said Cell only on 7th June, 2004 through the office of the Registrar. The petitioner had not given any information of the vacant seats to the B.Ed. Admission Cell. In such circumstances, the time prescribed under the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999 cannot be said to have started running. The institution was not justified in granting admission to the petitioner- students after expiry of one week from the date they alleged to have served a copy of the letter dated 26th May, 2004 in the office of Registrar i.e., on 27th May, 2004 without awaiting for the list of suitable candidates being forwarded by the University as per the merit of the entrance examination.
22. The submission of the Management that the service of the letter upon the Registrar is deemed to be a service upon the University as contemplated by the Government Order dated 14th December, 1999, with reference to the provisions of Section 16-H of the State Universities Act is also not acceptable in the facts of the case. Suffice is to point out that under the letter dated 15/17th May, 2004 the Principal of the institution was specially informed to deliver the information with regards to the vacant scats to the B.Ed. Pravesh Prakoshtha only. In the opinion of the Court, once vide letter dated 15/17.5.2004 the University had intimated to the institution about the information of the status of the seats after admission under the letter to be intimated to a particular office of the University alone, all other modes of intimation which are generally available; to the institution stood excluded by implication and the institution was obliged to intimate the status of the vacant scats to the particular office, in the fact of the case B. Ed. Pravesh Prakoshtha only.
23. The petitioner-institution, for the reasons best known to it, did not supply the said information to the B.Ed. Admission Cell. Any information supplied by the petitioner to the office of Registrar cannot be said to the sufficient information to the University with regards to the vacant scats inasmuch as admission in the B.Ed. Course was being regulated and monitored by the B.Ed. Pravesh Prakoshtha of the University alone.
24. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner dated 8.12.2003, passed in Writ Petition No. 35468 of 2002 has no application in the facts of the present case and is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in the aforesaid case there was no dispute with regards to intimation to the vacant seats to the University by proper correspondence.
25. Even otherwise this Court fail to see as to how Committee of Management of the institution is aggrieved by the stand taken by the University inasmuch as against the 4 students wrongly admitted by the institution, the University has now forwarded a list of 4 new candidates for admission after holding that the institution had wrongly granted admission to the petitioner-students of Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2004.
26. So far as the claim of the petitioner of Writ Petition 35687 of 2004 is concerned, their admission had been cancelled by the University within span of 13 days of the admission. This Court cannot permit the rights of the candidates, who have secured better merit than the petitioner-students in the entrance examination conducted by the University, to be defeated because of illegal admission granted by the institution to the petitioners. If the institution had delayed the information about cancellation of the admission of the petitioners for the reasons best known to it, the proper remedy to petitioner-students in such circumstances would be to claim damages against the institution itself. However, this Court" cannot grant1 them protection to continue on the basis of the wrongful admission. It may be that the University had not afforded opportunity of hearing to the students concerned before passing the order dated 17th June, 2004, however, every order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is not required to be quashed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. References JT 2000 (9) SC 502, JT 1999 (5) SC 114, AIR 1986 SC 828.
27. In view of the aforesaid, both the writ petitions are devoid of merit and arc accordingly dismissed.
28. Certified copy of the order may be supplied to the Counsels for the petitioners by tomorrow on payment of usual charges.