The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27429 of 2022 Debes Kumar Das …. Petitioner Mr. R.N. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate of O.P. No.1 Mr. P. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 to 4. W.P.(C) No.32999 of 2022 Krushna Chandra Dikhit …. Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate of O.P. No.1 Mr. T.N. Patnaik, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 to 4. Order No. 09. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA ORDER Date of hearing : 20.01.2023 Date of order: 24.01.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Since the above noted two writ petitions are based on identical facts and involve adjudication of identical issue, both the matters are
Decision
taken up together for hearing and the same are being disposed of by the following common order. For the sake of convenience and // 2 // brevity the facts of the case in W.P. No.27429 of 2022 is being taken up for discussion while disposing of the matters by this common order. 3. The said writ petition has been field with a prayer to quash the decision under Annxure-4 dated 20.09.2022 refusing the petitioner to take admission in P.G. Course of Library and Information Science for the Academic Session 2022-2023 and the decision of the Admission Committee of the P.G. Council, Utkal University dated 23.09.2022 under Anexure-6 series and further, it has been prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to allow the petitioner to take admission in the P.G. Course in the Academic Sessions 2022-2023 in P.G. Course of Library and Information Science. 4. The factual matrix leading to the filing of present writ petition is that the petitioner being eligible and interested to take admission in P.G. Course of Library and Information Science had applied for admission within the due date. After scrutiny of his form, the Opposite Parties have issued admit card to the petitioner and allowed him to appear for the test/examination on 08.08.2022 and accordingly, the petitioner had appeared in the said test. Thereafter, the result of the test was published on 05.09.2022. Wherein the petitioner was placed at 10th rank in respect of the P.G. Course of Library and Information Science with the option for different universities within 11.09.2022. The petitioner opted for taking admission in P.G. Course under Utkal University. 5. On 15.09.2022, the petitioner was issued with intimation letter by the Opposite Party No.1 through State Academic Management System (in short ‘the SAMS’) and he was asked to produce his original documents before the Utkal University between 16.09.2022 // 3 // to 17.09.2022. Pursuant to such intimation, the petitioner submitted all the required documents in original with Opposite Party No.4 on 16.09.2022. At the time of verification of documents, the petitioner was asked to give undertaking with regard to ragging and on second P.G. admission. 6. It is apt to mention here that earlier the petitioner had taken admission into the course of Journalism and Mass Communication under the Self Financing Mode in Utkal University in the academic Session 2016-2018. It is also stated that on19.09.2022 petitioner was asked to exercise slide up option through online mode, which was stipulated in the Higher Education Department website out of 1st round merit list. He could detect that in the website of the SAMS it has been mentioned that “as you have not taken admission, so you are not eligible for slide-up process” The petitioner was utterly shocked to get such information in the website of the SAMS. He was informed by the Opposite Party No.4 that the Utkal University in its meeting held on 17.08.2022 had resolved that students found admitted into/completed more than one course in any institution/university including Utkal University, in service in any Government/ Corporation/ Company /Private Sector undertaking etc. or practicing as Advocate at the Bar shall forfeit his/her seat and attract such penal action as may be considered appropriate by the University. The student has to furnish undertaking to this effect. This decision of the Utkal University on 17.08.2022, which was taken much after the selection process started, therefore the petitioner was treated as ineligible for admission into M.A. in Library and Information Science in 2022. 7. Heard Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the // 4 // petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27429 of 2022 and Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the W.P.(C) No.32999 of 2022 and Mr. T.N. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Utkal University in both the writ petitions as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27429 of 2022 submitted that the process of selection for admission into P.G. of Library and Information Science was initiated pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.06.2022 issued by the Higher Education Department, Government of Odisha. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner appeared in entrance test and he was duly selected and his name appears against Sl. No.12 in the final select list. After the result of the common entrance test were published, a decision was taken by the Syndicate of Utkal University on 17.08.2022 to the effect that a candidate cannot take admission into P.G. Course for the second time after he has successfully completed/selected for another P.G. course by the in the very university. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such a decision of the academic council is illegal, erroneous and arbitrary on following two counts; (i) Firstly, such a decision was taken after the admission process was commenced and the result of the entrance test was published and by that time, the name of the petitioner has already been included in the merit list. Therefore, without going into the merits of the decision dated 17.08.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the same cannot have retrospective application to an examination process for // 5 // admission which has already commenced. (ii) Secondly, it was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision taken by the Syndicate of Utkal University is unconstitutional inasmuch as the other university in the State of Odisha, which are giving admission to the students upon their examination through the SAMS, do not have such restrictions. Therefore, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in one State under the same State Government, different universities are not allowed to have different standards for admission of students particularly when they are selecting candidates for admission through a common portal known as SAMS, which is directly under Government supervision by none other than the Higher Education Department, Government of Odisha. Therefore, it was argued that the decision taken by the University is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that intimation from the Chairman P.G. Council-cum-HOD of Library and Information Science, Utkal University to the SAMS department of HED, Government of Odisha vide Letter No.809 dated 20.09.2022 under Annexure-4 is illegal, arbitrary and the same is to be quashed. 9. Mr. T.N. Patanaik, learned counsel for the Opposite Party- University had filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the Syndicate of the University, which is the Apex body so far academic matters are concerned had taken a conscious decision in its // 6 // meeting held on 17.08.2022, and pursuant to the said resolution an embargo has been imposed for taking admission into 2nd P.G. Course after successful completion of 1st P.G. Course. While filing his counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the factual aspects involved in the writ petition. Therefore, in the entire counter affidavit the emphasis has been laid on the fact that the decision has been taken by the syndicate of the Utkal University on dated 17.08.2022. Further, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that such a decision was taken by the syndicate on the recommendation of the admission committee dated 26.07.2022. Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party- University also laid emphasis on the undertaking given by the students on 2nd P.G. admission, which was taken at the time of verification of documents. By then, the selection process for admission had commenced. Therefore, he further contended that since the petitioner had completed Master Degree in Journalism and Mass Communication in Self Financing Mode in the year 2018 under Public Administration Department, he is not eligible for admission to PG. Course in Library and Information Science in 2022. Accordingly, it was submitted by Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-University that the petitioner has been denied admission keeping in view the decision of the syndicate dated 17.08.2022, which was communicated to the SAMS on 20.09.2022. Therefore, the learned counsel for the University urged that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same be dismissed at the threshold. 10. Further affidavit has also been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 it has also been stated that the petitioner was selected on // 7 // 15.09.2022 and the result was duly declared by SAMS and further the petitioner was asked to come for verification of original documents on 16.09.2022 to 27.09.2022 before the competent authority of the university. It is further contended that the documents under Annexure-D/2 and E/2 are not genuine documents. Such documents were specifically sought for by SAMS in its intimation letter dated 15.09.2022, therefore, such documents are the result of an afterthought. Further, it is stated in the said affidavit that two documents are forcibly taken away from the petitioner without explaining the contents thereof to the petitioner. It has also been stated that in the admission notice dated 20.06.2022 under Annexure-1, there was no restriction whatsoever in respect of candidates, who have completed P.G. Course in one subject cannot take admission in the 2nd P.G. Course. Since the petitioner applied with all the eligibility criteria he is eligible to take admission in Library and Information Science under Annexure-1. However, the University is illegally denied the admission to the petitioner by relying upon a decision which was taken much after the examination for admission process commenced. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further tried to draw a distinction between the Master Course in regular mode and the Master Course in Self Financing Mode. He further contended that the restriction which was imposed pursuant to decision of the syndicate on 17.08.2022 is in respect of the P.G. course under regular mode and not otherwise. So far present petitioner is concerned, he had taken admission in Self Financing Mode, therefore, these are two different courses and the same cannot be equated. Accordingly, it is submitted that the restriction imposed vide decision taken on 17.08.2022 is not applicable to the petitioner. // 8 // Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in almost all the Universities in the country there is no restriction with regard to taking admission in number of P.G. courses. He further contended that the decision taken is unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon a careful consideration of the materials placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the sole question i.e. involved in the present writ petition is whether university was correct in imposing said restriction when the selection for the admission process had commenced w.e.f. 20.06.2022 under Annexure-1. This Court, at this juncture, without going into the merits of the decision taken by the syndicate of the University on 17.08.2022, deems it proper to examine the procedure adopted by the SAMS while selecting the candidates for admission and the subsequent conduct of the university in denying the admission to the petitioner. The factual position is not disputed by either side. The SAMS which is the agency run by the HED Government of Odisha to regulate control supervise the admission to the colleges in the State of Odisha had published the advertisement on 20.06.2022 fixing therein the conditions and the time line. Accordingly, the students applied and opted for their respective courses in the college/universities of their choice. Thereafter, the selection/test took place and the petitioner was found selected for taking admission to Library and Information Science Course imparted by the Utkal University. However, before taking admission, the syndicate of the University changed eligibility criteria on 17.08.2022. By the time, a decision was taken by the syndicate of the University the admission process had commenced vide the notification on 20.06.2022. Therefore, the syndicate of the university consisting of academicians, professors and teachers could // 9 // not have put the clock behind and accordingly decision of which they have taken could not have been given retrospective effect. This Court at this juncture without going into the authority of the syndicate, validity of decision taken by them and reasonableness of such decision would confer the adjudication to one aspect of the matter i.e. when the admission process has commenced, whether the syndicate as well as SAMS were legally justified in changing the admission criteria in mid-way. This Court would like to express here that law on the subject is no more res integra. In a catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court it has been held when the selection process has already commenced, the examining body have no authority to change the rules for selection when the process has already commenced. Such conduct on the part of the Opposite Parties would be hit by the principle contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation, at this juncture, to hold that the decision taken by the syndicate should not have been applied to the current academic session in which the petitioners are interested and consequently they have been duly selected. Denial of admission to the petitioner by changing the eligibility criteria is highly arbitrary and unreasonable and same would be result in unfair and unjust treatment of the students, who had already been selected to take admission. Moreover, the abrupt manner in which the decision was taken and implemented also likely to affect the career of the students particularly in view of the fact that no such restriction has been imposed by other universities in the State of Odisha as well as in the entire country. Thus, had it been known to the petitioner from the beginning, he would have opted for some other university where there is no such restriction. By changing the decision abruptly // 10 // implementing the same in a surreptitious manner according to this Court is unfairness of the highest order and the same will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that although this Court has not examined the decision dated 17.08.2022 on its merit, however, assuming that the university has authority to take such a decision and that such decision is correct, then the same should have been made applicable for the next academic session not for the current academic session. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in declaring that the letter dated 20.09.2022 under Annexure-4 is illegal and arbitrary and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the Opposite Parties are directed to give admission to the petitioner on the basis of his rank and selection forthwith on production of certified copy of this order preferably within a period of one week. Since the university is responsible for this choas this Court further directs the university to conduct special class/tutorials to compensate the loss suffered by the present petitioner by not attending classes. 13. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Jagabandhu ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge