AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU, in short) and its officers challenging the orders of the learned Munsif, Koil, Aligarh and the Vlllth Additional District Judge, Aligarh for having directed the AMU to produce certain documents before the Munsif Koil, in a suit instituted by respondents no. 3 and 4, Miss Gulshan Akhtar and her father, Akhtar Alam, respectively.
The AMU has a medical faculty and it admits students to the four and half year MBBS course after selecting candidates in a competitive examination. The eligibility of the students take the competitive examination is that he or she should have passed the Senior Secondary School Certificate (Senior SSC, in short) or premedical Examination of the AMU or an equal examination with not less than 50 percent of the total marks in English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together. It is the case of the present writ petitioners that respondent no 3 was allowed to take the entrance examination on her declaration that she was appearing in 1993 Senior SSC examination for improving her merit. Not only in the earlier Senior SSC examination of 1992 but also in the Senior SSC examination of 1993, which she took for improving her merit, respondent no. 3 could not achieve the target of 50 percent in the above 4 subjects taken together and, accordingly, she was ineligible for being considered for an entry into the MBBS course irrespective of her performance in the entrance examination.
On being refused admission by the AMU, the respondent no 3 together with her father, respondent no. 4, filed a suit before the learned Munsif, Koil, alleging irregularities in the selection process of the entrance test, and praying for a permanent and prohibitory injunction against the AMU from giving effect to the result for the academic year 19931994. A further prayer was made in the suit for enjoining the University from obstructing the plaintiff Miss Gulshan Akhtar in attending classes of MBBS as a regularly selected candidate till final examination of MBBS. There was no averment in the plaint that although she had taken the entrance examination on 15593 for the session 199394, she had achieved the required minimum percentage in the 4 subjects. In fact, the plaint was silent on that aspect.
The suit was contested by the present writ petitioners and a written statements was put in making averments suitably asserting or denying the allegations made in the plaint. It was stated, inter alia, in the written statement that plaintiff no. 2 was wrongly joined in the suit having no concern with the examination or the university. It was definitely contended in the written statement that the plaintiff no. 1, Miss Gulshan Akhtar, was not eligible for entrance examination for having failed to secure the required percentage in the Senior SSC examination, either in the year 1992 or even the year 1993 which examination she had taken for improvement.
During the pendency of the suit a prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff before the learned Munsif for calling upon the AMU to produce the following documents :
(i) Answer Books of plaintiff no. 1 and other candidates, and
(ii) Forms of the application of the selected candidates, and
(iii) any other relevant record connected with the subject matter under issue.
This interim prayer was objected to by the defendants, that is, the present petitioners indicating that about 7000 candidates have appeared in the entrance examination and it was not physically possible for the defendants to produce all the answer scripts. It was further pointed that the documents in question were confidential Defendants also objected to the vagueness of the documents as per item no. (iii) above. A specific plea was taken that hearing on the application of injunction was pending and moreover Gulshan Akhtar was not eligible at all for admission for the reasons as indicated above, and as such, it was not necessary to direct production of such documents at this stage. During argument this plea was pressed. The learned Munsif, however, directed production of the records and the present plea was met with an observation that the point that the plaintiff (no. 1) was not eligible for the admission, may be decided only on merits of the case. On a Civil revision moved before the District Court, the Vlllth Additional District Judge, Aligarh confirmed the order of the learned Munsif supporting his views that the point concerning eligibility of Miss. Gulshan Akhtar would be decided on merits at a subsequent stage.
The present writ petition challenges these orders of learned Munsif Koil dated 15111993 and of the Vlllth Additional District Judge, Aligarh dated 22294. On this writ petition an interim order of stay of operation of the aforesaid two orders was recorded on 9394. The respondents appeared and submitted a counter affidavit against the averments made in the writ petition and prayed for vacation of the stay order. On the consent of the parties, however, the matter was fully heard and is being disposed of, finally by the present order.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the court below should have decided the preliminary issue first concerning the right of respondent no. 3 to sue. It was further contended that respondent no. 3 had made a prayer which amounted to a roving enquiry and she should have pointed out to the definite cases where illegalities were committed and the courts below should have insisted for definite allegations. The respondents herein retorted that the order of the learned Munsif was only an interlocutory one and he had kept his mind open for consideration of the objection raised by the AMU and no revision would lie against such an order. Accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge was right in recording his order in rejecting the prayer for revision. There was nothing illegal in these two orders which would call for an interference by this Court.
In this case the court is faced with the following admitted facts :
The Aligarh Muslim University has a medical faculty and it has its own Rules for admission in the MBBS course. Under those rules, there is a twofold barrier to such admission; A candidate must possess a minimum eligibility to take the entrance examination, and once he or she is so eligible, he or she must compete to be one of the first such number of candidates for whom vacancies were there. The eligibility, according to the AMU Rules, was that the candidate must have acquired 50 percent total marks in English, Physics, Chemistry, Biology together in Senior SSC examination. The rules of the University permitted students to take the entrance examination who were appearing in Senior SSC examination suggesting that they could only be considered if they passed out subsequently with the aforesaid percentage of marks. The rules also permitted a candidate who had once passed the Senior SSC examination with not so good a result to take the examination of the next year to improve his or her merit. There is no denial, in the counter affidavit Sled on behalf of Miss. Gulshan Akhtar, of the existence of these rules. There is no averment in the plaint (as per copy annexed to the writ petition) that Miss. Gulshan Akhtar had acquired this minimum eligibility marks in the Senior SSC examination of 1992 or 1993.
The plaint of Miss Gulshan Akhtar asserted that she had secured a first division in the High School examination and has also passed 10+ 2 examination in 1992 and she claimed eligibility only on this count. In this writ petition, it was contended that once the university had permitted her to take the competitive entrance test, it was estopped from saying at this stage that she was not eligible. This argument does not appeal to reasons. The university arrange the competitive entrance test to see that only meritorious students do get in the required course. The university by way of grace permits students to take the entrance test who are awaiting their result in the Senior SSC. This concession can never be interpreted to act as an estopped as that an interpretation would go to the extent of giving indulgence to non meritorious students.
Before the trial court a definite plea was taken that the plaintiff No. 1 was not eligible not on the basis of the competitive test but on the basis of her result in the Senior SSC examination. The suit was filed not in a representative capacity, as would be indicated from the averments of the plaint and the prayers made therein. A civil suit is always adversary in nature and the concept of a public interest litigation is alien to civil courts. Thus, the plaintiff could not have maintained a suit simply for pointing out the irregularities of the university unless her own interest was jeopardised. In other words, she could file a suit only when her right was affected by any action of the university. The right claimed was that of entrance into the course and the university rules stood on the way as there were certain minimum eligibility conditions. The point that the plaintiff was not eligible was, therefore, paramount in determining the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.
Before the learned Munsif the plaint and written statements were there and the first duty of the court was to frame issues. Normally a court is bound to pronounce its judgment on all the issues before it. But where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit and the court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof maybe disposed of on issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on the issue. I have indicated that as the question of the plaintiff no. 1 being eligible for admission goes to the root of her case thereby touching the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, that issue should have been decided first.
In the courts in our country litigations are pouring in day in & day out and the courts must exercise their judicial prudence to dispose of the matters at the earliest and such objection of the present nature, as was raised by the defendants in the suit, should have been taken first without going at that stage to the exercise of calling for bundles of documents. I am not, at this stage, recording any judicial finding on the necessity or otherwise of the documents as I feel that the court of the first instance should have decided the preliminary issue on the eligibility of Miss. Gulshan Akhtar which could have ended the suit at that stage itself, if the objection was sustained.
Considering all these matters, the impugned order of the learned Munsif, Koil, dated 153.1993 in Suit No. 482 of 1993 and that of the learned Vlllth Additional District Judge, Aligarh, dated 22294 in Civil Revision No. 151 of 1993 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court of first instance with a direction that he will take up the issue of eligibility of Gulshan Akhtar to the admission into the MBBS course on the ground of her lack of the bare minimum of marks as per Rules of the university. It is made clear that Munsif will afford opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence on this point and no observation on fact in this order would bind the Munsif in arriving at a decision on the point. It is further directed that the AMU shall retain and preserve the records of the entrance examination for the MBBS course of 1993 for production if and when so directed by the Court.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the above directions. There will be no orders as to cost.
(Petition allowed).