JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assist by Sri Krishna Ji Khare and Sri S.D. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ankur Goel, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Smt. Sunita Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
2. Kavita Yadav, the petitioner was a candidate for the Entrance Examination conducted by the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh for admission to M.F.A. (Master of Fine Arts) two years degree course. After the said Entrance Examination a select list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial No. 6. She was issued a call letter informing her that she must report for admission on 19.7.2004 in the Chairman's Office, Department of Fine Arts between 9.00 a.m. to 4,00 p.m.
3. It is admitted case of the petitioner that she could not report on 19.7.2004 within time specified in the call letter.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner reached Aligarh on 19.7.2004 in the evening and reported before the Admission Committee in the Chairman's Office, Department of Fine Arts on 20.7.2004. She was refused admission on the ground, she has not reported within time specified for admission in the call letter.
5. It is submitted that on 20.7.2004 itself the University granted admission to certain candidates lower in merit that the petitioner namely respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 4, namely, Uzma Khan has been admitted to said M.F.A. two years degree course, although she was not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification as mentioned in the ordinances of the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and, therefore, her admission is illegal. According to the petitioner Uzma Khan had passed the B.A. (Hons.) three years degree course in Fine Arts under 10+2+3 system and she had not undergone the Pre-Master's Courses (Bridge Course) of one year's duration of one year Diploma in Applied Arts as regular candidates. In view of the aforesaid the petitioner claims that she must granted admission in M.F.A. Course, if there is no vacancy to adjust the petitioner, the admission of Uzma Khan be cancelled and in her place the admission of the petitioner be admitted.
6. On behalf of the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Smt. Sunita Agarwal has contended that the admission to the candidates lower in merit that the petitioner, namely respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 was granted on 20.7.2000 prior to the reporting of the petitioner. In that regard reference has been made to Paragraph 5-B of the counter affidavit, the petitioner had not reported within time specified, and therefore, she cannot claim relief against the University Authorities.
7. So far as the admission granted to Uzma Khan is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the University that in the brochure published by the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh for the purposes of admission in various courses for the year 2004-05 commonly known as "Admission Guide", the minimum qualifications prescribed for admission to M.F.A. Course (Master of Fine Arts) did not require a candidate With B.A. (Hons.) under 10+2+3 system to have undergone the Pre-Master's Courses (Bridge Course) of one year's duration or one year Diploma in Applied Arts as regular candidates. The reason assigned for, the same is that the Aligarh Muslim University had not started the Bridge Course prior to the Academic Session 2004-05 and, therefore, the University did not insist on the said minimum qualifications, so far as Uzma Khan is concerned.
8. In view of the aforesaid it is submitted that the admission granted to the respondent No. 4 is strictly in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the Admission Guide.
9. On behalf of the respondent No. 4 similar contention has been raised by Sri Ankur Goel, Advocate.
10. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.
11. So far as the case pleaded by the petitioner with regard to her being delayed, for reason beyond her control from appearing before the Chairman's Office, Department of Fine Arts on the date and time specified is concerned, this Court cannot look into the sufficiency of the reasons for the said delay,
12. It is admitted position that the petitioner has not reported for admission on the date and time specified, consequently the University was justified in granting admission to the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 and the other candidates, who were lower in merit than the petitioner.
13. The question now is as to whether the admission granted to Uzma Khan is in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable or not. For deciding the said issue it is necessary to refer to the Ordinances armed by the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh under Section 29 of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the '1920 Act'). Section 29(1)(a) confers a power upon the Aligarh Muslim University to frame Ordinances providing for the admission of students to the University and their enrollment as such. In exercise of power under the aforesaid statutory provisions, the University has framed the Ordinances known as "Academic Ordinances" and Chapter XXII(A) deals with the admission to Master of Fine Arts (M.F.A.) Course and reads as follows :
"ACADEMIC ORDINANCES, CHAPTER XXIII(A) MASTER OF FINE ARTS (M.F.A.)
1. No candidate shall be eligible for the Master's degree unless he/she obtained not less than two years previously B.F.A. (four years courses) degree of this University or an examination recognized by the University as its equivalent and has undergone a regular courses of study in the University for not less than two years.
Candidates who have obtained the B.A. (Hons.) in Fine Arts degree under 10+2+3 system of education may be considered eligible for admission to M.F.A. course provided that they have undergone a Pre-Master's Courses (Bridge Course) of one Year's duration or one Year Diploma in Applied Arts as regular candidates."
14. From the aforesaid Ordinances, it is apparently clear that for admission to M.F.A. Course in respect of candidates, who have obtained a degree of B.A. (Hons.) in Fine Arts under 10+2+3 system it is mandatory that they undergone a Pre-Master's Courses (Bridge Course) of one Year's duration or one year Diploma in Applied Arts as regular candidates. So far as the minimum qualifications mentioned the Guide to admission is concerned for the academic session 2004-05. The minimum qualification reads as follows :
16. It is further admitted position that Uzma Khan has not undergone Pre-Master's Courses (Bridge Course) of one Year's duration or one year Diploma in Applied Arts as regular candidates and has obtained B.A. (Hons.) degree course in Fine Arts under 10+2+3 system, only thus she has not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualifications as provided under the Ordinances framed by the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh for admission in M.F.A. Course.
17. In the opinion of the Court, the brochure published by the University cannot run contrary to the Ordinances, which are statutory in nature. Every Authorities of the University, be it the Admission Committee, Examination Committee or the Vice-Chancellor are bound to act in accordance with the Ordinances framed Therefore, it does not lye in the month of the University to contend that since the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh had not started the Bridge Course referred to above, they did not insist on the said minimum qualifications in respect of the candidates, who were holder of a degree of B.A. (Hons.) in Fine Arts only. The University cannot grant admission to the students in any course contrary to the provisions of the Ordinances. It is, therefore, established that the admission of Uzma Khan is not in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinances framed by the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
18. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the respondent-University and respondent No. 4 have stated that since the admission has been granted to Uzma Khan on the basis of Guide to admission and she has already undergone a part of the Course, her career may not be jeopardized, and she may be permitted to continue in the University in M.F.A. Course.
19. However this Court cannot permit the respondents to bye-pass the claim of the petitioner on the ground that no seats are now available for admission of the petitioner because they had granted admission to Uzma Khan contrary to the Ordinances, in such circumstances, the right of the petitioner cannot be jeopardized because of any act of the University, which is not in confirmity with the Ordinances. This Court, therefore, directs that the petitioner should be admitted for M.F.A. Course by the University forthwith either by creating one more seat or providing admission to the petitioner after by cancelling the admission granted to Uzma Khan.
20. The writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made hereinabove.