1. Present petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.979 of 2012 and other three petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No.1374 of 2012, Special Civil Application No.1734 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No.1375 of 2012 were heard together. However, as mentioned in the separate orders passed in the said three petitions, at the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners the said three petitions are adjourned to 19.3.2012.
2. So far as present petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.979 of 2012 is concerned at the outset it is necessary to note that diverse issues including questions about the right of the college to admit the students in management quota and whether approval of university qua the admissions in management quota is required or not are involved in present petition. The issue about the procedure require to be followed for granting admission, the university's right to approve admission and finalize the admission for both categories and the time limit within which the entire process of admission was to be completed and whether the process was completed within prescribed time limit and as per the prescribed procedure or not are also raised and involved in present petition. The respondent university has also raised several objections against the process of admission carried out by the petitioner college and the respondent university has also opposed action of petitioner college of granting admission outside the process of Admission Committee and without approval of the respondent university. All the aforesaid and such other issues raised by the contesting parties are required to be examined.
3. However, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner and accepted by learned Counsel for the respondent university, that the final examination of first semester for M. Ed. course is to commence from 20.3.2012 and that therefore there is paucity of time to hear the petitions finally. From the status of the facts and pleadings it appears that both the sides may have to file further affidavit/s.
In such circumstances the request from the side of the petitioner was made that appropriate direction to the respondent university to permit the students to appear in the ensuing examinations (which are to commence from 20.3.2012) may be granted by way of interim relief.
4. This Court has considered said request.
5. As mentioned hereinabove, several issues are raised and involved in present petition which include interpretation of the relevant stipulation, in the prospectus, with reference to the admission procedure.
On one hand the respondent university has asserted that the petitioner college has granted admission in violation of the process prescribed by the university and that therefore the admissions granted by the respondent university are not valid.
On the other hand the petitioner college has claimed that it has conducted the procedure in accordance with the instructions issued by the respondent university.
Furthermore, so far as present petition i.e. SCA No.979 of 2012 is concerned, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has, on the strength of the documents at annexure-E pages 15 and 16 prima facie demonstrated that admission of the students whose names and other details are mentioned in the said documents at annexure-E pages 15 and 16 have been approved by the university inasmuch as the authorized officer of the respondent university have put their signature on the said statement.
Besides this, it is also asserted by the learned advocate for the petitioner college that the petitioner college has already forwarded the examination forms and details of the said students to the respondent university and the same have been accepted by the respondent university. As of today the said submissions are not denied by the respondent university.
Thus, on the strength of the said documents and submission learned advocate for the petitioner prima facie demonstrated that the admission of the said students are made in accordance with prescribed procedure and they are made with the approval of the respondent university and the students have attended the classes for prescribed minimum days.
It is necessary to note that before the issue can be finally heard and decided, the examination of the first semester would be over.
Therefore, situation may arise whereby at the end of the final hearing if the petition is allowed in favour of the petitioner college but if the students are not allowed to appear in the ensuing examination by way of interim arrangement, then there is likelihood that an irreversible situation may arise and the students may be put to suffer loss of one semester or they may be obliged to clear (if that is permissible) all examination at a stretch in the second semester which may prove to be unbearable burden on the students.
6. Therefore, so as to avert and avoid such irreversible situation wherein the ultimate sufferer may be the student, if ultimately the petitioner colleges succeeds in petition, it is considered appropriate, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to pass below mentioned order without forming precedent.
The respondent university shall take necessary steps to permit (a) the 19 students whose names are mentioned in annexure E at page 15 of Special Civil Application No.979 of 2012 i.e. (1) Joshi Kinjal Kirit (2) Solanki Artiben Kishorbhai (3) Shah Shloka Ankurkumar (4) Patel Nayanaben Purshottamdas (5) Chaudhary Twishaben Narendrabhai (6) Yadav Gayatri Kumari Siya Sharan (7) Chaudhary Mayurika Jawaharbhai (8) Gaunda Nita Shivanbhai (9) N. Uma Maheshwari (10) Aahire Swatee Shankarbhai (11) Pandya Madhuri Remeshwar (12) Joshi Jayshree Mohanlal (13) Dave Muktiben Jagdishchandra (14) Patel Kajal Ashokbhai (15) Dasgupta Shaynee Ajitkumar Manoj (16) Gamit Jaya Kantilal (17) Trivedi Nirali Hareshkumar (18) Patel Hetal Jagdishbhai (19) Bhabhor Sital Rasikbhai, as well as (b) other 5 students whose names are mentioned at the list annexed to the petition at page 16 i.e. (1) Chaudhari Surtaben M. (2) Patel Meghanaben D. (3) Rathod Rinalbe Rajendrasinh (3) Gamit Sandhyakumari Ajitbhai (5) Bhatt Dipal Bhaveshbhai, and also (c) 10 students whose names are mentioned separately in the same list at page 16 i.e.(1) Gamit Ripkaben Babubhai (2) Gamit Nitixabahen H. (3) Gamit Pannabahen J. (4) Parmar Priti Pravinbhai (5) Chaudhari Pragnaben R. (6) Parmar Nimisha Maganlal (7) Gamit Ramilaben B. (8) Gamit Binduben Manubhai (9) Chaudhari Suchitra A (10) Patel Hetalkumari B., to appear in the examination of M. Ed. (first semester) which is to commence from 20.3.2012.
The university shall allow the aforesaid students to take their examinations / appear in the examination and answer the test and for that purpose the university shall also take necessary steps to issue Hall Ticket and shall complete other formalities to enable the said students to appear in the examination and answer their papers.
It is, however clarified that present order shall not create any right and / or any privilege and / or any equity of any nature whatsoever in favour of the concerned students and / or the petitioner college. It is also clarified that on the strength of present order or on any other premise based on this order neither the petitioner college nor the concerned students will claim any right and / or equity including the request to ask the respondent university to disclose / declare the results of this examination. It is also clarified that if it is one of the requirements / conditions that for admission in second semester the student must clear first semester then the concerned students shall not, either on the strength of present order or otherwise on the ground that he / they have already appeared in the examination and / or that though they have appeared in the examination the results are not declared / are withheld claim any right for admission in second semester as well.
It is also clarified that present order is passed only by way of interim arrangement and out of concern for the academic year of the students since it is prima facie shown to this Court that the said students have taken their classes during the semester and have completed minimum number of attendance / classes. Or course, the respondent university has disputed these details and the same are yet to be examined at the time of hearing of the petition. Therefore, it is clarified that present order shall be subject to the final decision in the petition.
While making this order this Court has also taken into account the view taken by this Court in case between Jayshree Dineshkumar and ors vs. Gujarat University and anr. (2010 [3] GLH 115).
So far as the case of the one of the students i.e. Ms. Jigisha Ramanlal Patel is concerned, it is kept open for enabling the learned advocate for the petitioner to clarify relevant aspect on 19.3.2012. So as to avoid any complication or confusion it is clarified that this order is passed in presence of learned Counsel for the respondent and learned Counsel for the respondent is requested to communicate this order and the details to the competent authority.
With the aforesaid clarification and direction the petition is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top