SHERWINE TOM & Ors. v. NONE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.07.2010CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANW.P.Nos.15317 to 15321 of 2010, W.P.Nos.15322 to 15326 of 2010and W.P.Nos.15376 to 15380 of 20101.SHERWINE TOM ... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15317/102.NEENAMOL BABU... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15318/10 3.RAGENDHU P.S. ... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15319/10 4.ROSE RANI JOSE ... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15320/105.AJAY THOMAS ... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15321/106.DIVYA B.KRISHNAN ... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15322/107.CHARUTHA VASISHT... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15323/10 8.ANJALY.N ... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15324/10 9.SABITHA.P.... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15325/1010.SREEKALA.C.V.... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15326/10 11.NEETHU.P.O.... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15376/1012.ANEESH K.A... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15377/1013.SANGEETH.P. ... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15378/10 14.JISMOL FRANCIS ... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15379/10 15.ANJU P.L. ... PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.15380/10VS.1.THE TAMIL NADU DR.M.G.R. MEDICALUNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,69, ANNA SALAI, GUINDY,CHENNAI 600 032.2.THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,THE TAMIL NADU DR.M.G.R. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY,69, ANNA SALAI, GUINDY,CHENNAI 600 032.3.THE ACADEMIC OFFICER,THE TAMIL NADU DR.M.G.R. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY,69, ANNA SALAI, GUINDY,CHENNAI 600 032.4.Cheran's College of Nursing,rep. by its Principal,521(Old No.278-A) Siruvani Main Road,Telungupalayam Pirivu, Coimbatore 641 039.... Respondents in all Petitions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, calling for therecords of the respondents, relating to the order of the 3rdrespondent in Letter No.DCD(1)/11816/2010 dated 27.05.2010 and theorder of the 2nd respondent in Letter No.EXVIII(2)/46186/2009 dated03.06.2010 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner isconcerned and regularize the admission of the petitioner to B.Sc.(Nursing) course from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards.Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus,or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction in the nature of a writ, calling for therecords of the respondents, relating to the order of the 3rdrespondent in Letter No.DCD(1)/11816/2010 dated 27.05.2010 and theorder of the 2nd respondent in Letter No.EXVIII(2)/46186/2009 dated03.06.2010 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner isconcerned and regularize the admission of the petitioner to B.Sc.(Nursing) course from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards.For Petitioner:Mr.K.Doraisamy,Senior Counsel,for M/s.Muthumani DoraisamiFor Respondents:Mr.A.Saravanan, for R1 to R3C O M M O N O R D E RHeard Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for thepetitioners and Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing forrespondents 1 to 3. None represented the 4th respondent College,though they have been served.2.The petitioners have challenged the order of the 3rdrespondent in Letter No.DCD(1)/11816/2010 dated 27.05.2010 and theorder of the 2nd respondent in Letter No.EXVIII(2)/46186/2009 dated03.06.2010 with a direction to regularize their admission to B.Sc.(Nursing) course from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards.3.According to the petitioners, they wanted to join B.Sc.Nursing Degree Course in Tamil Nadu and made applications to theGovernment of Kerala, Board of Higher Secondary Examination andobtained Migration Certificate from the competent authority. Alongwith the required original certificates, viz., Higher SecondaryCertificates, Transfer Certificates issued by the competentauthority, the petitioners contacted the 4th respondent College(hereinafter referred to as 'College'), seeking admission underManagement Quota for B.Sc. Nursing Degree (4 year course) for theacademic year 2009-10 and they were admitted to the 4th respondentCollege on 16.09.2009 under the Management Quota for B.Sc. NursingDegree. They paid the requisite tuition fee/Eligibility Certificate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fee/Registration fee, etc and since then, they have been attendingclasses regularly. It is their bonafide belief that the Collegeforwarded all the required papers to the authorities and they will beable to complete their studies in the State of Tamil Nadu. 3a.While that being so, during June 2010, the College informedthe petitioners that because of the mistake committed by theerstwhile Principal of the College, the application for eligibilitycertificate was sent to the 1st respondent University belatedly andthe 1st respondent University in its Letter No.DCD(1)/11816/2010 dated27.05.2010 passed an order rejecting the request of the College forcondonation of the belated application. Further, the CollegeAuthority informed the petitioners that the University has passedorders to discharge the 15 students from the 1st year B.Sc. DegreeCourse. On enquiry with the College, the petitioners were informedthat the application for registration was submitted in time, i,e, on23.12.2009, even though the application for eligibility certificatewas made ready before the cut off date, viz. 30.09.2009 and that theDemand Draft of the petitioners (15 students) was taken on 05.10.2009before the extended time fixed by the 1st respondent viz. 20.11.2009.The same was submitted to the 1st respondent University belatedly,because of the mistake committed by the erstwhile Principal of theCollege and he has thereby committed procedural irregularity and theapplication for eligibility certificate along with Demand Draftsdated 05.10.2009 were belatedly submitted during March 2010 and theCollege Authorities made a request to the University on 03.06.2010 tocondone the belated submission of the applications on payment of fineand the college authorities further assured the petitioners that theywill get favourable orders before the commencement of the 1st yearexamination, viz. August 2010.3b.It is the further case of the petitioners that the Collegeauthorities have informed them about the order of the Universityauthorities rejecting their admission stating that their admissionfor the academic year 2009-2010 cannot be regularized. Challengingthe orders passed by the 1st respondent University, the petitionershave filed these writ petitions on the ground that they are not atfault at any point of time and they are fully eligible and that theUniversity authorities should see that the students do not suffer forthe procedural irregularities committed by the erstwhile Principal ofthe 4th respondent College. 4.A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf ofrespondents 1 to 3 and it is stated that the University had initiallyfixed the cut-off date for admission on 30.09.2009, which was laterextended to 20.11.2009. The students who are eligible for admissionare required to submit their Eligibility Certificate in person on orbefore the cut-off date fixed by the University. But, on thecontrary, they have failed to submit the Eligibility Certificate inperson before the cut-off date, i.e. 20.11.2009 fixed by theUniversity and therefore the admission of the writ petitioners cannot https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be regularized in B.Sc. (Nursing) course from the academic year 2009-2010 in the College. According to the respondent University, it wasnot their fault for passing an order rejecting the request of theCollege for condonation of the belated application and that theirUniversity had only acted as per the regulations for the B.Sc. Degreein Nursing (Basic) 2006 of their University, which reads as follows:"4.Eligibility Certificate : The candidatewho has passed any qualifying examination other thanthe Higher Secondary Course examination conducted bythe Government of Tamil Nadu before seeking admissionto any one of the affiliated institutions shall obtainan eligibility certificate from the University byremitting the prescribed fees along with applicationform which shall be downloaded from the Universitywebsite (www.tnmmu/ac/in)"Further along with the Eligibility Certificateapplication form, several instructions were issued tocandidates under the heading of "Instruction tocandidates". In the said instruction, clause 12 and 13read as follows:"(12)Candidates must seek EligibilityCertificate only before admission in theCollege. Eligibility Certificate will not beissued after admission to the candidate.Candidates seeking Eligibility Certificate mustfill up the application form in his/her own handwriting and sign in the application withoutfail. Others should not sign in the applicationform, if other candidates signed in theapplication form, the same will be summarilyrejected. Only one eligibility certificate willbe issued to a candidate or an authorisedperson. Not more than three EligibilityCertificate application forms will be issued toany candidate or his/her representative.(13)Application for the issue of EligibilityCertificate will not be entertained after theprescribed cut off date for admission to all theUG/PG Degree/Diploma courses during the academicyear".4a.In the counter, it is also stated that the petitioners havesubmitted their Eligibility Certificates only after the cut-off datethrough the College and therefore their admission in the Collegecannot be regularised and the same is in violation of the Regulationsof the University. As per the judgments of the Apex Court, thecollege authorities does not have power to admit the students after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the cut off date. The University had clearly instructed thecandidates to submit their Eligibility Certificate in person before20.11.2009. Therefore, according to the respondent University, thepetitioners are not fully eligible to be admitted in the 4threspondent College for the academic year 2009-2010. Hence, theyprayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.5.Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for thepetitioners would submit that the petitioners have submitted theirapplications through the 4th respondent College and they havesubmitted their Eligibility Certificates by taking a Demand Draft on05.10.2009 to the College immediately. They have been admitted tothe College before the cut-off date, i.e. 20.11.2009. According tothe learned Senior Counsel, it is an admitted fact that the erstwhilePrincipal of the College has committed irregularities by notsubmitting the applications in time. Therefore, there is delay inmaking applications to the University and because of that, thepetitioners' admission have been rejected on no fault on them. 5a.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, insupport of his contentions has relied on the following:(i)a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1980) 2 SCC752 in the case of Charles K.Skaria and others vs. Dr.C.Mathew andothers "23.We are aware that when a statute vests a publicpower and conditions the manner of exercise of that powerthen the law insists on that mode of exercise alone. Weare here unconcerned with that rule. A method ofconvenience for proving possession of a qualification ismerely directory. Moreover, the prospectus itselfpermits government to modify the method, as the learnedSingle Judge has pointed out. In this view, we seenothing objectionable with the government directive tothe selection committee, nor in the communication to theselection committee by the university, nor even in theirtaking into consideration and giving credit for diplomasalthough the authentic copies of the diplomas were notattached to the application for admission. A hundredexamples of absurd consequences can be given if thesubstance of the matter were to be sacrificed for mereform and prescriptions regarding procedures."(ii) yet another decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1986(Supp) SCC 740 in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. KarnatakaUiniversity and another"8.... The appellants being young students fromRajasthan might have presumed that since they hadpassed the first year B.Sc. Examination of theRajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary EducationBoard, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. Thefault lies with the engineering colleges which admittedthe appellants because the Principals of theseengineering colleges must have known that theappellants were not eligible for admission and yet forthe sake of capitation fee in some of the cases theygranted admission to the appellants. We do not see whythe appellants should suffer for the sins of themanagements of these engineering colleges. We wouldtherefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in thisjudgment, allow the appellants to continue theirstudies in the respective engineering colleges in whichthey were granted admission. But we do feel thatagainst the erring engineering colleges, the KarnatakaUniversity should take appropriate action because themanagements of these engineering colleges have not onlyadmitted students ineligible for admission but therebydeprived an equal number of eligible students fromgetting admission to the engineering degreecourse. ..."6.Per contra, Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing forrespondents 1 to 3 submits that there is a clear instruction from therespondent University that the candidates, who have passed anyqualifying examination other than the Higher Secondary courseexamination conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, before seekingadmission to any one of the affiliated institutions shall obtain aneligibility certificate from the University and it has to besubmitted along with the application in person and the same has to behanded over to the University for getting the eligibilitycertificate. He would further submit that the application forissuance of eligibility certificate will not be entertained after theprescribed cut-off date, as the date has been fixed by the SupremeCourt.7.I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perusedthe material documents in support of their case and also analysed therelevant provisions in the prospectus of the respondent University. 8.Admittedly, the petitioners herein are outside the State ofTamil Nadu and they have sought admission from the Institutionssituated within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent University andthe conditions prescribed for admission to any of the Institutionswithin the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent University. They haveobtained Essentiality Certificate. They have applied for B.Sc.Nursing course in the 4th respondent College and they have taken aDemand Draft for their admission on 05.10.2009. It is seen that thelast date for admission was 30.09.2009 and thereafter, it wasextended to 20.11.2009. It appears that the petitioners have beenadmitted in B.Sc. Nursing Degree (4 year) Course in the 4th respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ College on 16.09.2009 itself. It is the requirement that they haveto obtain Eligibility Certificate from the 1st respondent Universityin person and submit their applications duly filling them in theirown handwriting and sign in the applications without fail. Afterobtaining the Eligibility Certificate, the candidates are authorizedto get their admissions. But, after the cut-off date, any applicationfor admission without Essentiality Certificate will not beentertained. The rejection letter passed by the 1st respondentUniversity would reveal that the applications made by the College on26.03.2010 is much beyond the cut-off date, i.e. 20.11.2009.Therefore, the rejection made by the 1st respondent is on the groundthat the applications were submitted belatedly. Accordingly, the 1strespondent University has directed the College to discharge thestudents from admission into the College. Though the 4th respondentis served, there is no representation on their behalf to deny theabove position.9.On the facts pleaded by the petitioners, it is seen that ontheir enquiry with the 4th respondent College, the applications forregistration were submitted to the College with the fond hope thatpursuant to the applications made, they would get eligibilitycertificate at one stroke with a bonafide reason that they have madeapplications to the College and they had the information from theCollege authorities that their applications will be forwardedimmediately even before the cut-off date. But, the fault appears tobe with the College, since the erstwhile Principal has kept theapplications in abeyance without forwarding them within the timeframe; but, instead forwarded the same on 26.03.2010, much beyond thecut-off date. Hence, the applications of the petitioners have beenrejected by the 1st respondent University.10.In Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case relied on by the learnedSenior Counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court has held thatin case of young students from other States, who have passed firstyear B.Sc. Examination of the University, with the expectation thatthey would get admission in the College, the fault lies with theengineering colleges which admitted them, because the Principals ofthe Engineering Colleges must have known that the students were noteligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in someof the cases, they granted admission to the students. The ApexCourt, in the said case allowed the students to continue theirstudies in the respective engineering colleges in which they weregranted admission, on the ground that they should not suffer for thesins of the Managements of the concerned Engineering Colleges. 10a. In yet another decision in the case of Charles K.Skaria'srelied on by the learned Senior Counsel, the Supreme Court has heldthat when a statute vests a public power and conditions the manner ofexercise of that power, then the law insists on that mode of exercisealone. A method of convenience for proving possession of aqualification is merely directory. Moreover, the prospectus itself https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ permits government to modify the method. In that view, the SupremeCourt felt nothing objectionable with the government directive to theselection committee, nor in the communication to the selectioncommittee by the university, nor even in their taking intoconsideration and giving credit for diplomas although the authenticcopies of the diplomas were not attached to the application foradmission. A hundred examples of absurd consequences can be given ifthe substance of the matter were to be sacrificed for mere form andprescriptions regarding procedures.11.A careful analysis of the rulings of the Supreme Courtwould make it clear that the Institutions which have committedmistakes for their sake of convenience have not come forward toexplain the situation either by appearing in person or throughcounsel. In the case on hand, the petitioners have taken a DemandDraft much prior to the cut-off date and also they claimed that theirapplications have been submitted to the 4th respondent College withthe fond hope that the College will forward the same to the 1strespondent University to get Eligibility Certificate for theiradmission.12.The above facts and circumstances would reveal that thoughthe petitioners have submitted their applications to the 4threspondent College seeking for Eligibility Certificate, the Collegehas not forwarded the same to the 1st respondent University for thegrant of Eligibility Certificate, so as to enable them to getadmission in the 4th respondent College. Therefore, the delay lieswith the 4th respondent College for not forwarding the applications ofthe petitioners to the 1st respondent University before the cut-offdate, though it is required that the candidates themselves submittheir Essentiality Certificate along with their applications. 13.Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, withoutinterfering with the orders of the respondent University and withoutexpressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court is ofthe view that the 1st respondent University may be directed to lookinto the entire situation leading to the submission of applicationsand the Demand Draft dated 05.10.2009 much prior to the cut-off date.If such applications are made by the 4th respondent College to the 1strespondent University, it may be looked into by the 1st respondent inaccordance with law taking note of the above rulings of the SupremeCourt as well as the factual aspects pleaded by the petitioners.Accordingly, the 1st respondent University is directed to re-considerthe position, taking note of the delay on the part of the 4threspondent College and give due consideration to the claim made bythe petitioners in accordance with law and on merits and passappropriate orders within a period of one (1) week from today, takingnote of the urgency expressed by the petitioners that the examinationis to commence on 02.08.2010 and as the counsel for the respondentUniversity has also agreed to take a decision in respect of the claimof the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.2 to 2 of2010 in the above writ petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarAbeTo :1.The Registrar,Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, 69, Anna Salai, Guindy,Chennai 600 032.2.The Controller of Examination,Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University,69, Anna Salai, Guindy,Chennai 600 032.3.The Academic Officer,Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University,69, Anna Salai, Guindy,Chennai 600 032.4. The Principal, Cheran's College of Nursing,521(Old No.278-A) Siruvani Main Road,Telungupalayam Pirivu, Coimbatore 641 039.+ 5 CCs to M/s.Muthumani Doraisami,Advocate,SR.54352Common Order inW.P.Nos.15317 to 15321 of 2010, W.P.Nos.15322 to 15326 of 2010and W.P.Nos.15376 to 15380 of 2010RS,RJ,TAM(CO)EM/27.7.10