Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
1.Heard the appellant in person and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2.Present appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, is against the judgment and order dated 6.10.2009, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No.5601 (M/S) of 2005.
3.The appellant preferred Writ Petition No.5601 (M/S) of 2005 whereby, an order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University was impugned. By the said order dated 20.10.2005, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has denied admission to the appellant in LLB Course and rejected representation on the ground that appellant does not qualify on merit being placed at serial No.502 of merit list. According to respondent, the last candidate admitted under general category, was placed at the serial No.135 of the merit list.
4.The order dated 20.10.2005, impugned before the Hon'ble Single Judge, reveals that earlier, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.5051(M/S) of 2005 with the grievance that she had applied for admission to L.L.B. three years course but in spite of several vacancies, her candidature was not considered by the opposite parties. Hence the Vice-Chancellor was directed to look into the matter and take decision with regard to admission keeping in view the existing vacancy. In consequence thereof, the representation of the appellant was rejected for the lack of vacancy.
5.During the pendency of writ petition before Hon'ble Single Judge, by an interim order dated 29.5.2006 in Writ Petition No.5601 (M/S) of 2005, this Court had permitted the appellant to appear in 2nd Semester Examination provisionally and by another interim order order dated 5.1.2007, the petitioner was permitted in 3rd Semester Examination provisionally and the declaration of result was subject to outcome of writ petition. By another interim order dated 15.5.2007, the appellant was permitted to appear in the 4th Semester Examination of LLB three years course and the case was directed to be listed for final hearing. Another interim order dated 21.11.2007 was passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge permitting the appellant to appear in 5th Semester Course Examination and the respondents were also directed to declare the result of the appellant of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Semester Examination. By another interim order dated 19.4.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the appellant was permitted to appear in the 6th Semester of L.L.B., however, the result thereof, was directed not to be declared till further orders of this Court. Later on, by subsequent interim order dated 23.5.2008, the Court directed to declare the result of 6th Semester Examination. By subsequent interim order dated 16.7.2008, the appellant was directed to deposit entire fees with regard to admission and examination of law course and to declare the result of all semesters of LL.B. Course.
6.During the pendency of Writ Petition No.5601 (M/S) of 2005, the appellant filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No.3196 (M/S) of 2008 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondents to give admission in LL.M. Course, 2008. In pursuance of the marksheets issued from the respondent University, with regard to LL.B. Course, the appellant was enrolled to Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council, having enrolment No.03810/08 and in consequence thereof, she has been practising in this Court.
7.Before the Hon'ble Single Judge, the respondentsrelied upon the cases reported in AIR 1992 SC 1926: State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale; 1998 (5) SCC 377: C.B.S.E. Vs. P. Sunil Kumar; 1994 (6) SCC 1: State of U.P. & others. Vs. Ramona Perhar (Km.) and 2005 (23) L.C.D. 1601: Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University Faizabad. Vs. Civil Judge (Junior Division) in which one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh) was a member.
8.Hon'ble the Single Judge held that since the appellant was admitted for LLB in pursuance of interim order and her name in the merit list was much below the name of last selected candidate, she was not entitled for admission and consequential studies. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and deprived the appellant from all the benefits extended to her during pendency of writ petition. The prayer for admission of appellant to the LLM Course was also rejected by Hon'ble Single Judge.
9.While dismissing the writ petition, the Hon'ble Single Judge has passed the order, the operative portion of which, is reproduced as under:
"After going through the order impugned, I find that the Vice Chancellor has rightly rejected the petitioner's representation seeking admission in LL.B. course as her merit was much below to the last candidate admitted in the course and after giving admission to the candidate who was at the rank of 135, the total seats also filled up. Therefore, I do not find error in the order impugned. Since the petitioner succeeded to appear in the examination and to get declaration of result under the strength of the various interim orders passed by this Court time to time which is not permissible as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases discussed here-in-above. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any benefit on the basis of the said result. Therefore, I hereby provide that the petitioner's result of LL.B. examination shall be nonest and she shall not be entitled to get benefit of degree of LL.B. Examination, if awarded to her.
In the result the writ petitions are dismissed."
10.There appears to be no dispute over the proposition of law that ordinarily, the student should not be permitted to appear in examination provisionally by interim order. Admission of candidates to pursue studies having no place in merit list, shall amount to slackening the standard of education. Ordinarily, in academic matters, Courts should not pass interim orders unless prima facie case is made out to grant such reliefs. In the present case, from time to time, Hon'ble Single Judge has passed the interim orders without taking note of the fact that the appellant was much below to the last selected candidate admitted for LL.B Course. Passing of such interim orders in academic matters, no doubt, shall lower down the standard of education. It would have been better in case the writ petition filed by the appellant should have been decided at an early date preferably, at initial stage. However, sometimes, delay is caused because of non-filing of counter affidavit by the State Government or its instrumentalities and universities. In absence of counter affidavit being not filed by the State Government or its instrumentalities or universities, the interim orders are passed but while passing interim orders, care must be taken that whether the person who approached the Court, has prima facie, a case for admission to course concerned or not. Only in the event of clinching evidence and prima facie case in the academic matters, the interim orders may be passed.
11.It is settled law that interim order merges to the final order passed in a petition or suit. Accordingly, in our opinion, Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly held that since the writ petition is dismissed, all the reliefs given to the appellant, shall lose its sanctity. However, in the present case, it appears that the appellant has not only passed the LL.B. Course but has enrolled herself with the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council.
12.It is not disputed fact on record that the appellant has got admission in LL.B. Course though her name was below the lowest selected candidate in pursuance of interim order. It appears that the appellant was admitted to LL.B. Course not in order of merit but against the existing vacancies.
13.In the case reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241:Kumari Madhuri Patil and another. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the case where candidate applied for admission in the MBBS course and in pursuance of directions issued by the High Court, she was admitted in the MBBS course and continued her studies. Though the candidate does not qualify on merit but since she was admitted in pursuance of directions issued by the High Court, she was permitted to complete her course with the following observations:
"18. The delay in the process is inevitable but that factor should neither be considered to be relevant nor be an aid to complete the course of study. But for the fact that she has completed the entire course except to appear for the final examination, we would have directed to debar her from prosecuting the studies and appearing in the examination. In this factual situation no useful purpose would be served to debar her from appearing for the examination of final year MBBS. Therefore, we uphold the cancellation of the social status as Mahadeo Koli fraudulently obtained by Km. Suchita Laxman Patil, but she be allowed to appear for the final year examination of MBBS course. She will not, however be entitled in future for any benefits on the basis of the fraudulent social status as Mahadeo Koli. However, this direction should not be treated and used as a precedent in future cases to give any similar directions since the same defeats constitutional goals."
14.In another case reported in 2001 SCC (L&S) 117: State of Maharashtra. Vs. Milind and others, the aforesaid proposition based on equitable ground, has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The case of Milind (supra) has been followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105: R. Vishwanatha Pillai. Vs. State of Kerala and others, with the following observations:
"27. In State of Maharashtra. v. Milind a Constitution Bench of this Court while permitting the candidate to retain the degree obtained by him even though his claim as member of the Scheduled Tribe was rejected, observed: (SCC p.31, para 38) "38. Respondent 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practising as a doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobody's benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to Respondent 1. If any action is taken against Respondent 1, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practising as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time, in the given circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.16372 of 1985 and other related affairs, we make it clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment." (emphasis supplied).
15.It is settled proposition of law that no one should suffer for the act of Courts. The maxim "Actus Curiae neminem gravabit", which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a fact situation the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. (Vide Shiv Shankar and others Vs. Board of Directors, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another., 1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 726; M/s GTC Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1998 SC 1566; and Jaipur Municipal Corporation Vs. C.L. Mishra, (2005) 8 SCC 423).
16.Though, we are of the view that the interim order should not have been passed by Hon'ble Single Judge from time to time permitting the appellant to pursue her course but keeping in view the fact that the appellant was permitted to pursue her study and completed her course and later on, enrolled with Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, she should not be put to suffer on equitable ground. The appellant has spent a substantial portion of her life to pursue her studies with regard to LL.B. Course and thereafter, enrolled with the Bar Council and has been practising as Advocate. The time is essence of life and a person cannot be deprived of his or her source of livelihood in case he or she has completed studies and thereafter entered her life as an Advocate. Things would have been different in case while approaching this Court, the appellant would have committed some fraud and obtained interim order with regard to admission in LL.B. Course and thereafter, would have got enrolled herself in Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council. In the event of commission of fraud, no equitable relief can be granted by the Courts.
17.It would be too hard to deprive the petitioner from successful completion of LL.B. Course and consequential enrolment with the State Bar Council. The clock cannot be turned back depriving the petitioner from her status more so when it is exclusively not based on interim orders passed by this Court and also not rests on commission of fraud or misrepresentation. From the record, it appears that in pursuance of the interim orders, the respondent University granted admission and the appellant continued with her studies along with her regular status without any disturbance to other candidates admitted in the same academic session.
18.Accordingly, we are of the view that benefit availed by the the appellant in pursuing her study of LL.B. Course, and consequential registration as an Advocate with the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council, should not be annulled.
19.However, so far as the finding recorded by the Hon'ble Single Judge with regard to admission in LL.M. Course is concerned, requires no interference. Since the admission of the appellant in LL.B. Course was in pursuance of interim order passed by this Court, we are maintaining the appellant's right, on the basis of admission of LL.B. Course, however, the appellant cannot be permitted to pursue her further studies in pursuance of the orders of this Court or application moved for LL.M. Course, 2009.
20.In view of the above, we allow the appeal in part and set aside/modify the judgment and order dated 6.10.2009 to the extent it rejects the appellant's admission of LL.B. Course and consequential reliefs. The appellant shall be entitled for all benefits with regard to admission in LL.B. Course but the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge to the extent of rejecting appellant's claim with regard to admission in LL.M. Course, is maintained.
21.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
No orders as to costs.
[Justice Virendra Kumar Dixit] [Justice Devi Prasad Singh] Order Date :- 30.11.2010 Rajneesh)