Manpreet Kaur v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar & Anr.

completed his first semester in the year 2007 and finally completed the degree of B.Sc. in Medical Laboratory Technology (MLT) in February 2010. She has passed the degree course in first division. Based on the information given in the prospectus issued by the respondent-Guru Nanak Dev University regulating the admission to various courses including M.A. Psychology, the petitioner applied for grant of admission in M.A Psychology on line. On the basis of her application, the petitioner appeared for counselling and was granted admission on 06.07.2010. On 07.07.2010, the petitioner deposited the requisite admission fee. In August, 2010, the petitioner had submitted the examination fee for the examination, which are to commence on 26.11.2010. As per the requirement, the petitioner deposited the eligibility fee of Rs. 200/- and thereafter received a letter dated 11.10.2010, which must have come as a bombshell to her. She was told that her admission stood cancelled. Reference is made to the decision of the Eligibility Committee of the respondent- University whereby the B.Sc. degree in Medical Laboratory Technology possessed by the petitioner from Punjab Technical University is held not equal to the graduation degree of the respondent-University. She, accordingly, has filed this writ petition to impugn the said order. Respondent-University has filed reply. By way of preliminary submission, it is stated that the petitioner has acquired the degree course of B.Sc. Medical Laboratory Technology by Civil Writ Petition No. 19165 of 2010 3 obtaining the same through Lateral Entry by Distance Education Mode, which is in contradistinction to regular mode of teaching. It is also stated that this degree is obtained from Learning Centre affiliated to Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and as such has not been found to be equivalent to the B.Sc. degree issued by the respondent-Guru Nanak Dev University , after following the study of 10+2+3 system as prescribed in the prospectus. Besides, reference is made to the minutes of deliberation of the Expert Committee dated 19.10.2007 (Annexure R-3). As per this, the Committee had considered the recognition of Bachelor of Science (Medical Lab. Technology) degree of Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar awarded under the Lateral entry and the decision was taken to recognize the same except into those cases where it is acquired by Distance Education Mode. Accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner was not eligible to get admission to M.A. Psychology as she was having a Bachelor of Science of Medical Laboratory Technology degree, which she had acquired by way of Distance Education Mode. The stand in the reply further is that the petitioner did not mention in her admission form that she had a qualification of degree of Bachelor of Science of Medical Laboratory Technology through Lateral Entry by Distance Education Mode. It is also stated that the petitioner had voluntarily paid the prescribed processing fee for participation in the online admission and on the basis thereof she was granted admission purely provisionally subject to the fulfillment of eligibility and in this regard attention is drawn to admission order Annexure R-1. It is otherwise conceded that the petitioner had paid the prescribed admission fee and also the Civil Writ Petition No. 19165 of 2010 4 processing fee for checking her eligibility for admission to the M.A. Psychology course. It is stated that for the first time the petitioner has mentioned that she had passed the qualification examination of B.Sc. Medical Laboratory Technology by lateral entry i.e. Distance Education Mode. Accordingly, the University has justified the order of cancelling the admission earlier granted to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner for which she should now be left high and dry. The action of the University now would lead to wastage of one year of the career of the petitioner as she would not be able to pursue her studies anywhere else. The counsel also refers to the provisions in the prospectus on the basis of which she had applied for grant of admission in M.A. Psychology. As per the provisions contained in the prospectus, what was held out therein can clearly be made out from the eligibility laid down for grant of admission to M.A. Psychology. As per the conditions in the prospectus, the eligibility for admission to M.A. Psychology course as is under:- B.A. (Hons.) in Psychology under 10+2+3 system OR B.A./B.Com./B.Sc. under 10+2+3 system with at least 50% marks OR Atleast 45% marks in the subject of Psychology in B.A. under 10+2+3 system. Three alternative qualifications have been prescribed for grant of admission to M.A. Psychology. Person with B.A. (Hons.) with Civil Writ Petition No. 19165 of 2010 5 Psychology under 10+2+3 system or person having B.A./ B.Com./B.Sc. under 10+2+3 system with 50% marks or atleast 45% marks in the subject of Psychology in B.A. under 10+2+3 system are the eligibility qualification laid down for grant of admission. Concededly, the petitioner is possessing Bachelor of Science Degree in Medical Laboratory Technology. The dispute is not in regard to the degree as such but the mode in which this degree was or is acquired. No doubt, the Expert Committee constituted by the University has taken a decision after going into the nature of course being imparted for seeing the equivalence of said degree with the degree of B.Sc. as awarded by the University concerned. There is no dispute that the decision of this Expert Committee is to recognise the degree of B.Sc. Medical Laboratory Technology as such but this decision is with exception in regard to those degree which are acquired through Distance Mode of Education. There is no indication in the prospectus that the B.Sc. degree acquired through Distance Mode of Education would render the candidate ineligible in admission. In view of this position, counsel for the petitioner is justified in submitting that had this been so clarified in the prospectus perhaps the petitioner would not have applied and even if applied and granted admission than the same could have been open to be validly cancelled. The counsel is justified in urging that the petitioner is taken by a complete surprise. He would submit that the petitioner was never aware of this position that the degree of B.Sc. which she possesses would not be considered eligible for grant of admission only because the manner in which it is acquired. This is not a Civil Writ Petition No. 19165 of 2010 6 decision which the University has taken now after grant of admission once it is faced with this situation. The petitioner has been granted admission in the year 2010. This decision of the Expert Committee is of the year 2007. That being the position, it could be expected from the University to clearly provide in the prospectus that any degree of Bachelor of Science or any other degree acquired through Distance Mode of Education would not be considered equivalent to the degree being issued by the University and, thus, said degree would not make a candidate eligible for grant of admission to the courses run by the University. The decision of the University in this background can not be termed as fair and the petitioner could not be put to prejudice leading to serious harm to her pursuit in education. Even otherwise, the perusal of the decision of the Expert Body shows that no reasons are recorded for not recongnises the degree attained through distant mode education. Courts generally do not sit in appeal over the decision of the Expert body as it is not the decision, which is amenable to writ jurisdiction but the decision making process. The Expert body may have taken a decision not to equate the degree of B.Sc. in Medical Laboratory Technology acquired through Distance Mode of Education equivalent to the B.Sc. degree issued by the University but the decision does not contain any reason. The decision, apparently, is just an ipse dixit of the Committee without indicating any reason in support. It can, therefore, be stated that the decision making process of the University is not fair or atleast may give an indication of lack of fair consideration. I am not going into the validity of what had been weighed with the experts to arrive at the decision but that decision making Civil Writ Petition No. 19165 of 2010 7 process is not available on record for the court to see whether it was properly reached or not. Moreover, the petitioner has not made any attempt to misrepresent. She was granted admission and now has nowhere to go. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, the cancellation of her admission cannot be termed as justified. It can be expected from the University to disclose this fact in the prospectus as that would primarily regulate the admission to various courses. Once this condition of ineligibility was not prescribed in the prospectus, the University may find it difficult to hold someone ineligible on that basis. Counsel for the petitioner is also justified in making reference to the ratio of law laid down that would emerge from the case of Shri Krishan versus The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra AIR 1976 Supreme Court 376. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has observed that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which can be looked into before giving the permission to appear. It is not a case of suggestio falsi or suppressio veri, where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence fraud is not proved. Reference can be made to Sanatan Gauda versus Berhampur University and others AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1075 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ashu Singla versus Punjabi University, Patiala and another 2004 (2) RSJ 720. In Ashu Singla's case (supra), the petitioner was admitted in BCA and Civil Writ Petition No. 19165 of 2010 8 permitted to take part in the examination knowing the fact that the petitioner had not passed 10+2. Evidence showed no misrepresentation. It is viewed that the respondents were estopped to take the plea of eligibility after allowing petitioner to pursue studies. The cancellation of admission, therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the decision of the University is set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been validly admitted to this course and shall also be allowed to complete the same. However, the above view is taken keeping peculiar facts and circumstances of this case in view. This judgment would not be in any manner be a bar for the University to decline admission in future to any candidates, who has acquired B.Sc. degree from the Distance Mode of Education on the basis of opinion of the Expert, which the University has constituted. However, the University is well-advised to consider for incorporating this condition in the prospectus in future so that no candidate is taken by surprise. The present writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. November 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE