AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.K. Thakker, C.J.—In all these petitions, common questions of fact and law have been raised for the decision of this Court. It is, therefore, appropriate to take all the petitions for consideration and decide them by a common judgment.
A point raised by the Petitioners relates to admission to B.V.Sc and A.H. course in Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur. Before adverting to individual petition, it may be necessary to state relevant provisions governing admission to the said course. Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, District Kangra was established under the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). u/s 3 of the Act, the University is having a perpetual succession and common seal and can sue and be sued by the same name. Its objects have been specified in Section 5 of the Act and its powers and functions have been laid down in Section 7. The authorities functioning under the university have been mentioned in Section 10 of the Act, which, inter alia, include Senate; Board of Management; Academic Council, etc. Section 15 of the Act describes powers and functions of the Academic Council. It enables the Academic Council to regulate and prescribe Courses of study, determine curricula and to have general control of teaching and other educational programmes within the University. Sub-section (3) of the said section empowers the Academic Council to make regulations for admission of students to the University and determine number of students to be admitted. It also authorises Academic Council to exercise such other powers and perform such other duties conferred or imposed on it by or under the Act.
It is an admitted fact that the Respondent-University is conducting five years B.V.Sc and A.H. course inclusive of six months compulsory internship training. The present petitions relate to admission to B.V.Sc and A.H. Course for the academic session 2000-2001. A prospectus for the said academic session was issued by the Respondent-university. Chapter I is introductory. Chapter II provides for Programme Intake and Reservation. Clause 2.1 declares sanctioned seats. It states that for the year 2000-2001, the academic council has sanctioned 35 seats under B.V.Sc and A.H. five years programme. Clause 2.2 speaks of seats over and above sanctioned seats. Clause (d) thereof states that there will be five seats for NRI/NRI sponsored candidates. It further states that for those seats, a separate prospectus is available in the University. Those seats also are to be filled in through common Combined Entrance Test. Chapter III provides for admission to the B.V.Sc. and A.H. Course. Chapter IV makes provisions for Entrance Test and preparation of Select List and Waiting List. Basis for admission is "merit" as determined by the competitive examination subject to the regulations framed in that behalf by the Academic Council from time to time. It is also clarified that minimum percentage of marks required in aggregate to qualify the Entrance Test are to be prescribed by the Academic Council from time to time and the list of candidates is to be notified by the registrar on or before July 20, 2000. On July 25, 2000 successful candidates are to appear in person before Admission Committee for scrutiny of their original certificates/testimonials and weightages claimed by them. The registrar is to notify the list of selected candidates programmewise on August 1, 2000. Chapter V deals with Enrolment and Fees. For fees of NRI/NRI sponsored candidates, in clause 5,6 it is stated:
Charges for NRI/NRI sponsored candidates
B.V.Sc and A.H. 8,000 US$ B.Sc (Agri) 4,000 US $ Chapters VI and VII relate to financial assistance and instructions to the candidates.
As mentioned in the prospectus (General), a separate prospectus has been issued by the University for B.V.Sc and AH course for NRI/NRI sponsored candidates for the academic session 2000-2001. As per Important Dates/Events, the last dated for receipt of complete application form was May 31, 2000. The date of interview/scrutiny of original documents was July 25, 2000. Date of Registration was August 4, 2000 (from select list) and August 5, 2000 (from waiting list). For payment of fees for NRI/NRI sponsored candidates in clause 9 of the prospectus, it has been stated as under:
NRI/NRI sponsored Candidate, payment/self financing seats fees/charges.
(i) Charges for NRI/NRI sponsored candidates
B.V.Sc and A.H. = 8,000 US $ B.Sc (Agri) = 4,000 US $ (ii) Charges for payment/self financing seats
B.V.Sc and AH = 3,50,000.00sss B.Sc (Agri) = 1,75,000.00 50% of the above charges will be realised at the time of admission and rest in equal instalments (at the time of registration each year) in proportion to duration of the programme. The above charges are in addition to usual fees payable by the students. Fees/charges once paid is not refundable.
The application form for admission, as provided herein, should be mailed to the Assistant Registrar (Academic), H.P. Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur 176062 (Kangra) H.P. (India) by 31.5.2000 without late fee.
With late fee of Rs. 50-00 upto 5.6.2000
With late fee of Rs. 100.00 upto 10.6.2000
With late fee of Rs. 250.00 w.e.f. 11.6.2000 to 22.6.2000.
Clause 11 provides for submission of certificates/testimonals, etc. The said clause reads as under:
NRI candidates have to support their application with the following certificates:
(i) Copy of non-resident Card/employment card issued by the employer.
(ii) Photocopy of immigaration/employment visa entry on the passport alongwith the details of the passport.
or
Certificate issued by the Indian Embassy/High Commission in the country where the NRI is residing.
Clause 12 of application for admission requires declaration by the applicant and by his/her guardian. It reads thus:
Declaration by the applicant and the Guardian.
(a) I declare that the entries made by me in the form are correct to the best of my knowledge. I am conscious that if any of the entires are found to be incorrect, my admission is liable to be cancelled.
(b) I have read carefully the prospectus supplied by the university and I undertake to abide by the rules of the university, as may be framed by it from time to time.
(c) I hold myself responsible for payment of fees and other dues on the dates according to the schedule prescribed by the University. My ward was never disqualified in any examination.
Signature of the applicant.... Signature of the Guardian....
Date....
The case of Mohit Chopra (Petitioner of CWP No. 554 of 2000) is that he submitted an application form for entrance test of B.V.Sc and A.H. course for the Academic Session 2000-2001 in May, 2000. Entrance Test was held on June 25, 2000. The Petitioner appeared in the Entrance Test under Roll No. 4938 and he secured 117 marks out of 200 marks as per notification of the University, which was published on August 5, 2000. He was in the select list at Sr. No. 3. According to the Petitioner, he was sponsored under NRI sponsored category by one Mrs. Rupinder Kaur. The Petitioner informed Mrs. Rupinder Kaur that a draft of 4,000 US Dollars should be remitted to him as he had been sponsored by her. According to the Petitioner, the time given for deposit of 4,000 US Dollars was too short. Mrs. Rupinder Kaur, therefore, informed the University that she would be remitting a draft of 4,000 US Dollars, but it would take some time in reaching the draft to the University. It is stated in the petition that August 6, 2000 was Sunday and August 7, 2000 was a Bank holiday in England. It was, therefore, not humanly possible to send a draft to India in such a short period so as to reach the Respondent-University by August 9, 2000. The notification was published by the University on August 5, 2000 and because of unavoidable circumstances, some more time was required. It was also the case of the Petitioners that in the previous year, the University had accepted admission fees from NRI/NRI sponsored candidates in Indian currency. Moreover, prospectus for the Academic Year 2000-2001 also did not contain a clause that NRI/NRI sponsored candidates admission fee shall be payable by bank draft of US Dollars only. As per the say of the Petitioner, the University refused to accept fees after August 9, 2000, thereby depriving him of his legitimate claim to get admission. Such action is illegal, contrary to law and unlawful. The time given by the University was too short and it was not humanly possible to pay fees within a short span of four days with intervening holidays. The action was thus arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, prayed in the petition that the Respondent-University be directed to admit the Petitioner in the first year B.V.Sc and A.H. course for the Academic Year 2000-2001 against NRI sponsored seat without insisting for the deposit of 4,000 US Dollars by August 9, 2000 and by granting reasonable time to deposit the said amount. A prayer is also made to quash condition No. 5.6 (i), whereby NRI/NRI sponsored candidates were directed to deposit admission fee only from Bank Account of NRI/NRI sponsor''s or in the shape of Bank draft in equivalent Indian currency issued against NRI account of NRI/NRI sponsorer maintained in India.
CWP No. 592 of 2000 is filed by Vikram Guleria, whose case is also similar to the case of Mohit Chopra (CWP No. 554 of 2000) with the only distinction that whereas the name of Mohit Chopra appears in the Select List of candidates at Sr. No. 3, the name of Petitioner Vikram Guleria (CWP No. 592 of 2000) appears at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list. His case was that after the notification containing merit list was published on August 5, 2000, selected candidates were directed to deposit fees latest by August 9, 2000. Candidates in the waiting list were directed to complete formalities on August 10, 2000 by paying fees in case of default by candidates in the select list. It is his case that when his father came to know about the condition in the prospectus dated July 25, 2000, he addressed a letter to the Registrar (Academic) on July 27, 2000 that it would be impossible to send a draft within such a short period of three days of the declaration of result and such time should be extended reasonably upto August 15, 2000. Nothing was, however, done by the Registrar in the matter. It was also Petitioner''s case that his name was sponsored by one Jagmohan Kanwar of Parlin, New Jersey, USA. When the father of the Petitioner rang up Jagmohan Kanwar and requested him to remit draft of 4,000 US Dollars so as to reach the Respondent-University by August 10, 2000, the latter remitted the draft on August 7, 2000, but the University did not accept it and the Petitioner was illegally refused admission. According to him, the action of the University was illegal and contrary to law. He also, therefore, prayed reliefs similar to those prayed by the Petitioner Mohit Chopra of CWP No. 554 of 2000.
CWP No. 577 of 2000 is filed by Vishal Bhatia almost on the same line on which CWPs No. 554 and 592 of 2000 have been filed. The name of the Petitioner of this petition is at Sr. No. 4 in the waiting list. His case also is that the notification was published on August 5, 2000 and his name figured at Sr. No. 4 in the waiting list. He received the information of the notification dated August 5, 2000 only on August 9, 2000. He requested his sponsorer Vijay Kumar Rana on telephone to submit a draft of 4000 U.S. Dollars immediately. It, however, took some time and could not be submitted within the period stipulated by the University. He also contended before this Court that action of the University is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. He has also claimed similar relief prayed by Petitioners of the above two petitions.
C.W.P. No. 575 of 2000 is filed by two Petitioners (i) Anupam Vashishth; and (ii) Mayur Varshney, since minor, through his father Dr. A.C. Varshney. It may be stated here that subsequently Mayur Varshney also filed another petition (CWP No. 595 of 2000), which we will refer at an appropriate stage. In this petition, a grievance has been made by the Petitioners that though certain students had not brought original certificates/testimonials/documents and hence, under the terms and conditions of the prospectus, their cases could not have been considered. The University, however, allowed them to produce copies and such documents in contravention of terms and conditions of prospectus which was illegal and unlawful. Those students, therefore, could not have been considered and their names could not have been included either in the Select List or in the waiting list. A prayer is, therefore, made in this petition to set aside notification dated August 5, 2000 to the extent it included names of those candidates, who had not brought and produced certificates/testimonials/documents in original and to admit the Petitioners to the course in question.
C.W.P. No. 595 of 2000, as stated above, is instituted by Mayur Varshney (who has earlier filed CWP No. 575 of 2000). The grievance in the present petition is of permitting change of sponsorer by the Respondent-University in favour of Sandeep Gupta who was placed at Sr. No. 2 in the waiting list and who was admitted by the University by accepting admission fees. The contention of the Petitioner is that even though initially Sandeep Gupta had given name of Mrs. Reshma Manjdadrai as his sponsorer, later on he was permitted by the University to change the sponsorer and Ranjit Singh Pun was allowed to be promoted as sponsorer of the Petitioner. The said action was illegal, contrary to law and against the terms and conditions of prospectus. The action was arbitrary, illegal and was liable to be quashed and set aside. It was also contended that it was in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. No reasons were recorded and on that count also, the action was improper. A prayer is, therefore, made to quash and set aside the action of the University of admitting Sandeep Gupta and direction is sought to admit the Petitioner to the course in question.
Affidavits-in-reply are filed by the University as also by the contesting Respondents, inter alia, contending that the petitions were not maintainable at law inasmuch as neither any right of the Petitioners was violated nor any illegality was committed by the University. In reply to the contention that no insistence could have been made by the University for payment of admission fees in US Dollars on or before August 9, 2000, by the students whose names appeared in the select list, it was stated by the University that the action was in consonance with the terms and conditions of the prospectus as also conditions of admission. It was the say of the University that the Petitioners were fully aware of schedule of dates, sponsored students were informed from the beginning as to the fact that they were required to pay admission fee in U.S. Dollars. They, therefore, ought to have made necessary arrangement for payment of admission fees well before the date of registration. It was, therefore, not open to the students to make any grievance against the said ground which was strictly as per the intimation given to the student well in advance. It was also stated that giving of further time would not only violative of terms and conditions of prospectus but would also deprive the candidates in waiting list in getting admission who were prepared to pay admission fees.
It was also contended that the action of the University in accepting and relying on copies of certificates/testimonials/documents was in accordance with prospectus issued by the University and no grievance can be made by any student on that count. Similarly, permitting Mr. Sandeep Gupta to change his sponsorship pursuant to his request, the University has not committed any illegality. It was stated that Sandeep Gupta submitted sponsor documents from Mrs. Reshma Manjdadrai at the time of registration on August 10, 2000. He produced photocopy of sponsor letter dated July 23, 2000, renewal contract agreement with Petroleum Development, Oman and relevant pages of passport and visa from Ranjit Singh Pun. Since said Shri Sandeep Gupta fulfilled all eligibility conditions laid down in the prospectus, he was permitted to change sponsorer. Such action, hence, cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful.
On all these grounds, it was submitted by the University that the petitions do not deserve admission and they are liable to be dismissed.
Affidavits were also filed by contesting Respondents. It was their case that the action of the University was legal and lawful. It was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and also the prospectus. Regarding grant of further time, it was contended by them the time schedule was prescribed by the University and it was not relaxable "under any circumstances". It was uniformly made applicable to all candidates and the question of violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution did not arise. All NRI/NRI sponsored candidates were informed well in advance that they had to pay admission fees in U.S. Dollars. It was, therefore, incumbent and obligatory on their part to make necessary arrangements in time. If there was failure on their part in making such arrangements, University cannot be blamed nor such an action can be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. It was urged that when there was default on the part of candidates figured in select list and/or waiting list, other students were admitted, which was as per notification dated August 5, 2000 and there is no reason why they should suffer when they had complied with all the terms and conditions of prospectus.
On production of original certificates/testimonals/documents, it was submitted that the language of the prospectus is explicitly clear. Certain certificates/testimonials/documents, were to be produced in original and no concession was given by the University for such certificates/testimonials and documents. Regarding other certificates/testimonials/documents, prospectus itself provided for copies of such documents permitting the candidates to produce original subsequently. The action of the University was not contrary to law or against terms and conditions of prospectus and the grievance made by the Petitioners is ill founded and deserves to be rejected.
Regarding change of sponsorer, it was contended that, firstly, there is no prohibition in the prospectus of the University that a sponsorer cannot be changed. Moreover, the underlying object of NRI/NRI sponsorship is to get admission fee in U.S. Dollars. The said object is not frustrated or defeated by change in the sponsorship. No such condition could have been imposed legally as such a condition would be arbitrary and unreasonable. The Petitioner of CWP No. 595 of 2000, hence, has no right to make complaint. It was, therefore, submitted that all the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
We have heard Mr. K. D. Sood, instructed by Ms. Sunita Sharma, in CWP Nos. 554 of 2000, 577 of 2000 and 592 of 2000, Mr. Rajiv Sharma in CWP No. 575 of 2000, Mr. D.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Ankush Sood, in CWP No. 595 of 2000, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. N.K. Thakur and Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
From the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove three questions arise for determination of this Court. Firstly, whether the time fixed by the University for payment of admission fee for NRI/NRI sponsored students in U.S. Dollars can be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law. Secondly, whether the University had committed any illegality in permitting and allowing production of copies of certificates/testimonials/documents. Finally, whether the University could have permitted change of sponsorer in case of one candidate.
Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that the action of the Respondent University in insisting payment of admission fees in U.S. Dollars on or before August 9, 2000, was illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. By the said direction, an impossible task was asked to be undertaken by the Petitioners. Such an action can never be said to be legal, valid or in accordance with law. He submitted that the Petitioners did their best to pay admission fees within the stipulated period but they could not do so for the reasons beyond their control. He also submitted that in CWP No. 554 of 2000, it was specifically pleaded by the Petitioner that on August 5, 2000, a notification was published in respect of NRI/NRI sponsored students and they were asked to pay admission fees latest by August 9, 2000. It was stated that the sponsorer of the Petitioner was in England. August 6, 2000 was Sunday and banks were closed. August 7, 2000 was a bank holiday in England. The process thus could start only on August 8, 2000. Within a period of two days it was not possible to pay admission fees to the University. According to Mr. Sood, the action of the University is so unreasonable that no reasonable man in the facts and circumstances would insist payment of admission fees in U.S. Dollars latest by August 9, 2000. He, therefore, submitted that the action deserves to be quashed by this Court. It was also stated that in the last year, the University did not insist for payment of admission fees by NRI/NRI sponsored students in U.S. Dollars and the amount was accepted in Indian currency. Invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the counsel contended that it was not open to the Respondent University to change mode of payment this year, and that too, without affording opportunity to the Petitioners, without recording reasons and justifying such change in public interest and without granting sufficient time to the Petitioner. Such action was, therefore, contrary to well established principles of law and was arbitrary. Mr. Sood also submitted that insistence of payment of admission fees in U.S. Dollars was contrary to the terms and conditions of Prospectus inasmuch as in prospectus it was no where stated that payment of admission fees for NRI/NRI sponsored students must only be in U.S. Dollars or in equivalent Indian currency issued against the account of NRI/NRI sponsorer in India. It was only by a communication dated July 25, 2000, that such a condition was imposed which was inconsistent with and in violation of prospectus and could not be given effect to. He also urged that it is well settled that in admission to such courses merit and merit alone has to be taken into account. If it is so, submitted the leaned Counsel, there was no reason to deprive the Petitioners from getting admission who were much more meritorious than the students who have been granted admission. Such action cannot be termed other than arbitrary and in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court will not approve it.
It was submitted by Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in CWP No. 575 of 2000 that as per terms and conditions of the prospectus, it was obligatory on the part of the University to insist original certificates/testimonials/documents from the candidates who appeared in the Entrance Test and it was not open to the Respondent University to permit those students at Entrance Test in absence of originals. The said action of the University was contrary to the terms and conditions of prospectus and all those students must be held to be ineligible and disqualified to appear at the Entrance Test. Their cases, therefore, could not have been considered by the University. Appropriate direction, therefore, needs to be issued to the University by ignoring cases of those candidates and by ordering the University to prepare fresh list by considering the claims of the eligible candidates who had attended the Entrance Test with original certificates/testimonials/documents.
Mr. D.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel, made a grievance against the action of the University in permitting Mr. Sandeep Gupta to change sponsorship. He submitted that such an action is not permissible in law and could not have been taken. According to him, it would be contrary to primary purpose for which a provision has been made to name sponsorer. Sandeep Gupta, therefore, must be held to be ineligible. He urged that a direction to that effect may be given to the University ignoring the claim of Mr. Gupta and to issue fresh notification in accordance with law.
Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Counsel for the University in all the petitions supported the action of the University. He submitted that act of giving time for payment of admission fees to NRI/NRI sponsored students was as per terms and conditions of the prospectus and the Petitioners cannot make grievance, particularly when, it was made uniformly applicable to all candidates. He also submitted that prospectus was full, complete and self-contained. All necessary details have been given. It was made expressly clear and specifically provided that NRI/NRI sponsored students had to pay admission fees of 4000 U.S. Dollars. Such a condition is found in Clause 5.6(i) of Chapter V (Enrolment and fees) of Prospectus (General) and in Clause No. 9 of prospectus for NRI/NRI sponsored candidates. Moreover, on July 25, 2000, the Petitioners were also informed that in accordance with the terms and conditions of clauses 5.6 and 5.6 (i) of the prospectus, NRI/NRI sponsored candidates had to pay admission fees in U.S. Dollars. It was, thereafter, not open to the Petitioners to make grievance but to make necessary arrangements for payment of admission fees in US Dollars if they were interested in getting admission in NRI/NRI quota. If there was failure on their part, they cannot blame the University. It was also submitted that no term or condition of prospectus was violated by the University in insisting payment of admission fees in US dollars. On the contrary, from the very beginning, it was made clear by the University that NRI/NRI sponsored students had to pay admission fees in US Dollars. He, therefore, submitted that doctrine of legitimate expectations would not apply in the instant case. The counsel also submitted that the action cannot be termed as arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable.
Regarding production of certificates/testimonials/documents in original Mr. Thakur stated that it was decided by the University to permit students to produce copies of certain documents and no grievance can be made on that score also.
On change of sponsorship, he submitted that at the request of Mr. Sandeep Gupta and after considering the facts and circumstances, such an action was taken, which was not contrary to law, arbitrary or unreasonable.
The learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents supported the stand taken by Mr. Thakur. They submitted that in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in consonance with the terms and conditions of prospectus, certain actions were taken by the Respondent-University which were legal and unlawful. It was also submitted that one seat is ordered to be kept vacant by this Court and it is still not filled in. In other petitions, however, it was ordered that all admissions will be subject to the final outcome of petitions. Hence, students were admitted from the waiting list. They had already paid admission fees and started prosecuting studies. Serious prejudice will be caused to them if at this stage, petitions are allowed and their admissions are held to be illegal. It was, therefore, submitted that all the petitions may be dismissed.
We have given anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. We are, however, of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the University in the instant cases and the Petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed by them.
Now, looking to the terms and conditions in the prospectus (General), it is clear that five seats were reserved for NRI/NRI sponsored candidates. A separate prospectus for those candidates was published by the University. Chapter V of General Prospectus provided that NRI/NRI sponsored candidates had to pay admission fees in US Dollars. Similarly, prospectus for NRI/NRI sponsored candidates also made it explicitly clear in clause 9 that they had to pay admission fees in US dollars. It, therefore, cannot be said that at a belated stage a new condition was imposed and NRI/NRI sponsored students were asked to pay admission fees in US dollars.
It was contended on behalf of the Petitioners that in previous year the University had accepted from NRI/NRI sponsored candidates fees in Indian currency. It was also urged by Mr. Sood that the above averment made in paragraph 9 of CWP No. 554 of 2000 had not been controverted by the University. We may in this connection refer to prospectus for the year 1999-2000. In that prospectus also, it was stated that NRI/NRI sponsored students were to pay admission fees in US dollars. If, in spite of above condition in prospectus, NRI/NRI sponsored students were allowed to pay admission fees in Indian currency, it cannot be said that a right is conferred on NRI/NRI sponsored students to pay admission fees in Indian currency. On the contrary, from both prospectus for the year 2000-2001, i.e. General Prospectus as well as prospectus for NRI/NRI sponsored students, it is more than clear that NRI/NRI sponsored students had to pay admission fees in US Dollars.
There is an additional circumstance also, which cannot be overlooked or ignored. All the Petitioners as well as similarly situated candidates, who applied for admission in B.V.Sc. and AH on NRI/NRI sponsored quota and who appeared at the Entrance Test held in June, 2000, were informed by a letter dated July 25, 2000, that they were required to pay admission fees in US Dollars. One of such letters addressed to the Petitioner of CWP No. 554 of 2000 (Mohit Chopra), is annexed as Annexure P-2. Similar letters were addressed to other candidates. The said letter may be quoted in extenso:
Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Academic Breach. No. 7-4/91-HPK\\ (Acad)/ Dated Palampur, the : 25.7.2K
To
Mohit Chopra
Roll No. 4938
Sir,
You have applied for admission against NRI/NRI sponsored candidate''s segment. Your attention is invited to Chapter 5 of the undergraduate prospectus, 5.6 fees and 5.6 (i) page 28 charges for NRI/NRI sponsored candidate. The fee will be accepted only in US Dollar on the day of admission and the mode of payment will be as under:
The NRI/NRI sponsored candidates admission fee (non-refundable) shall be payable by bank draft in US Dollars issued against the bank account in the account of NRI/NRI sponsorer in the country in which he/she is residing.
OR
In the shape of bank draft in equivalent Indian currency issued against NRI account of the NRI/NRI sponsorer maintained in India.
In the latter case, the candidate is required to submit a certificate from the bank that the draft has been issued against the NRI account maintained by the NRI/NRI sponsorer. The bank draft should be drawn in favour of the controller, HPKV, Palampur payable at State Bank of India, HPAU Branch Palampur or any Scheduled Bank at Palampur, India.
The other usual university/college/hostel dues and other fees and funds as applicable will be charged in addition to admission fee as per university rules in Indian currency. It is for information as it is no letter of admission.
Yours faithfully, Sd/- Dy. Registrar (Acad).
(Emphasis supplied)
From the above letter, it becomes clear that even on July 25, 2000 all the students who had applied for admission as NRI/NRI sponsored candidates and who had appeared in Entrance Test were made aware that they had to pay admission fees as per the said letter. It was, therefore, incumbent upon them to make necessary arrangement for payment of admission fees in accordance with the terms and conditions of the letter dated July 25, 2000. If they failed to do so, they cannot blame the University contending that though they were intimated about the mode of payment of admission fees, in US Dollars and thus were aware about it, they could not comply with the direction as after publication of notification on August 5, 2000, there was no sufficient time available to them.
Relying upon a circumstance that in the previous year the University accepted admission fees in Indian currency, Mr. Sood, invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation. According to him, the said doctrine as highlighted by the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935, has been followed in several cases by the Apex Court as well as by this Court.
Our attention, in this connection, was invited by the learned Counsel to the following decisions:
(i) Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation and Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 299;
(ii) Madras City Wine Merchants'' Association and Another Vs. State of T.N. and Another, ;
(iii) P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others,
(iv) Sonia Kayastha v. State of H.P. and Ors. 1999 (1) Sim. L.C. 162; and
(v) Punjab Communications Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others,
It was argued that if an Authority has acted in a particular manner, it is expected of the said authority to act similarly in future cases also since persons similarly situated would expect of the authority to treat them in the manner in which other persons were treated by it. In case of departure of that practice, the Authority has to follow principles of natural justice and fair play. It has also to justify departure of practice. In an appropriate case, it is open to a court of law to consider and decide whether the action taken by the authority is otherwise legal, reasonable and in larger public interest. Since no reason, whatsoever, has been put forward by the University, no opportunity of hearing was afforded and at the last moment NRI/NRI sponsored students were asked to pay admission fees in US Dollars inconsistent with practice of the previous year, the doctrine has been violated and the action of the University deserves to be quashed and set aside.
We see no substance in the argument of the learned Counsel. As already observed earlier, the students, who had applied under NRI/NRI sponsored scheme, were clearly and unequivocally informed well in advance in both the prospectus, general as well as for NRI/NRI sponsored candidates, that they had to pay admission fees in US Dollars. On July 25, 2000, letters were also addressed, already extracted hereinabove. In the said letters also, NRI/NRI sponsored students were intimated about payment of admission fees in US Dollars. It is, therefore, not correct that it was at the last moment and by deviating long past practice that a new action was sought to be taken. To recall, in prospectus of 1999-2000 also, NRI/NRI sponsored candidates were required to pay admission fees in US Dollars. Even if in the last year, the University had accepted admission fees from such students in Indian currency, it cannot be said that by insisting payment of admission fees from NRI/NRI sponsored students in US Dollars as per the terms and conditions of the prospectus of 2000-2001, the University had acted illegally, arbitrarily or otherwise unreasonably. In our considered opinion, hence, the doctrine of legitimate expectation would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
It was then contended that it was humanly impossible for the Petitioners to pay admission fees in US Dollars within few days as directed by the University. On this point, Mr. Sood submitted that as late as on August 5, 2000, a notification was published by the University declaring the names of candidates in the select list as well as in the waiting list. Selected candidates were directed to report in person to Dean, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences on August 9, 2000, to deposit admission fees and get registration. The said notification is also important and it reads thus:
NOTIFICATION
The following candidates have been selected for admission to B.V.Sc. and AH programme of this University for 2000-2001 session under NRI/NRI sponsored category. They should report in person to Dean, College of Vety. and Animal Sciences on 9.8.2000 at 10.00 a.m. to deposit the prescribed University and college fees, and to register themselves. In case of default on their part, the seats remaining vacant will be offered to be candidates placed on waiting list without any further notice.
SELECT LIST
Sr. No. Name and parentage of Roll No. the candidate.
Karan Sehgal S/o 7588 Sh. R.C. Sehgal
Deepika Bharti Joshi 5379 D/o Sh. Santosh Kumar Joshi
Mohit Chopra S/o 4938 Sh. Joginder Kumar Chopra
Vishal Bhatia S/o 5016 Sh. Dulo Ram Bhatia
Arnav Sharma S/o 4333 Sh. Brijesh Kumar Guleri
The following candidates have been placed on the waiting list in order of merit for B.V.Sc. and AH programme under NRI/NRI sponsored category. They are advised to report in person to Dean, College of Vety. and Animal Sciences on 10.8.2000 by 2.00 p.m. to check up about the availability of vacant seats. They should enter their names in a register kept in the college and sign the same indicating date and time of their reporting. Vacancy will be filled on merit among the candidates who report by 2.00 p.m. They shall have to deposit the fee and get themselves registered on the same date by 5.00 p.m.
WAITING LIST
Vikram Guleria S/o Sh. W.S. Guleria 4357
Sandeep Gupta S/o Sh. Des Raj Gupta 7361
Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Milap Chand Rana 4504
Shaveta Sood D/o Sh. Bharat Chand Sood 4627
Mayur Varshnay S/o Sh. A.C. Varshney 4338
Pooja Kanwar D/o Sh. Mohinder Singh 4593
Nitika Sharma D/o Sh. N.L. Sharma 7378
Anupam Vashisth S/o Sh. H.K. Vashisth 4332
Rahul alias Rocky Raja S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar 7631
NOTE:
Time schedule mentioned above is not relaxable under any circumstances.
The candidates are required to deposit the fee as per circular given on 25.7.2000. There will be no deviation from it.
Candidates must come on the schedule date alongwith certificate and fee as per the circular dated 25.7.2000.
They must bring in ORIGINAL their tenth and plus two
certificates.
(Emphasis supplied)
It is the case of the Petitioner of CWP No. 554 of 2000 that on August 5, 2000, a notification was published by the University. The next day, i.e. August 6 was Sunday and August 7 was Bank holiday in England. It was, therefore, impossible for the Petitioner to get the amount of admission fees in US Dollars and to pay admission fees by August 9, 2000.
Similar contention is raised by the Petitioners of CWP No. 592 of 2000 and CWP No. 577 of 2000.
Now, apart from the fact that no material has been placed on record to show that 7th was Bank holiday in England, it was never the case of the Petitioner of CWP No. 554 of 2000 except in the petition filed in this Court. Looking to documents annexed to the petition, it is clear that by a letter dated August 5, 2000, (Annexure P-4), Mrs. Rupinder Kaur, sponsorer of the Petitioner informed the person in charge of the admission of the Respondent-university that earlier she did not know that University would need funds from there, i.e. England and only on previous day (August 4, 2000), she found that the University would like a draft of 4000 US Dollars by August 9. She further stated that she had instructed her bank to arrange for the amount and the amount would be with her on August 8. On that day, she would Fax the draft with a letter and a cover note. It would also be posted on the same day.
Similarly, a letter (Annexure P-5) was written by the Petitioner himself. It was addressed to the registrar of the Respondent-University on August 5, 2000. In that letter, he has stated that he came to know on that day that he had been selected for admission to B.V.Sc. course under NRI quota and a date of registration was August 9.
He then stated; "It is very short period so very difficult to get draft from a foreign country within this period because before today I did not knew (sic) I have (sic) I will be selected for this. So today I have talked to the sponsorer on phone so the money is already in transit. Considering these circumstances and facts, kindly allow me few days "atleast postage period" to arrange this."
From the above two letters, it is clear that it was neither the case of the Petitioner nor of his sponsorer that arrangement could not be made for getting US Dollars because of Bank holiday. According to the sponsorer, earlier she was not aware that admission fees was to be paid in US Dollars and only on previous day, she came to know that 4000 US Dollars was to be paid by August 9, 2000. Likewise, according to the Petitioner, the period was ''very short'', after he came to know that he was selected.
The University was, in our opinion, clear on its part. A specific clause found place in both the prospectus that NRI/NRI sponsored candidates had to pay admission fees in US Dollars. It, therefore, cannot be said that either NRI/NRI sponsored students or their sponsorers were not aware or taken by surprise as to requirement of the University, which was as per terms and conditions of the prospectus. Further, a communication dated July 25, 2000 was equally clear which specifically conveyed NRI/NRI sponsored students that they were required to pay admission fees in US Dollars. In the notification dated August 5, 2000 also, it was stated in Note: 2: that the candidates had to deposit admission fees "as per circular given on 25.7.2000. There will be no deviation from it." Now, a circular of July 25, 2000 provided for payment of fees in US Dollars. It was, therefore, perfectly within the authority of the University to insist payment of admission fees in US Dollars from NRI/NRI sponsored students within the stipulated period. By insisting on such condition, the University has not exceeded its power nor acted illegally arbitrarily or otherwise unreasonably. Moreover, when such a condition was uniformly applied to all NRI/NRI sponsored students, there was no discrimination on the part of the University. In addition, the notification clearly recited that in case of default on the part of selected candidates in getting registration and in paying admission fees, the seats remaining vacant will be offered to the candidates placed in waiting list without any further notice. Accordingly, after the stipulated period was over two students in NRI/NRI sponsored quota, who were in the waiting list at Serial No. 2 (Sandeep Gupta) and Serial No. 4 (Shaveta Sood) were granted admission. The action of the University, in the circumstances, cannot be held unlawful, improper or unreasonable.
In CWP No. 577 of 2000 (Vishal Bhatia) also, in the petition, it was no doubt contended that August 6, 2000 was Sunday and August 7, 2000 was Bank holiday in England. But that plea was put forward by the Petitioner only in the petition. In a letter to the Registrar of the Respondent university on August 9, 2000 (Annexure P-5), he stated that by a notification dated August 5, 2000, he was placed at Serial No. 4 in the select list. The letter about the said notification was despatched on August 7, 2000, which was received by him on August 9, 2000. According to him, he reported personally to the Dean at 4.35 p.m. on the same day. It was then stated that Bank draft No. 000537, dated August 9, 2000, was in the way. Due to odd weather and interruption due to road blocks and flooded Nullahs, he could present the same a bit late.
Similar is the case of Petitioner of CWP No. 592 of 2000 (Vikram Guleria). In a letter dated July 29, 2000 (Annexure P-3), he stated that as per communication of July 25, 2000, payment of admission fees was to be made in US Dollars from NRI sponsorer''s account. According to him, however, the time given for that purpose was not practical. It was extremely difficult, rather impossible, to arrange foreign exchange (4000 $) from NRI sponsorer''s account from abroad within three days of declaration of results, i.e. on August 4, 2000. Even efficient financial transaction in foreign exchange also would need 25 days to make demand draft and reach Palampur from abroad. He, therefore, requested that last date for deposit of admission fees by NRI sponsored candidates in demand draft in US Dollars be extended upto August 15, 2000.
From the above letters by the Petitioners and their sponsorers, it is clear that it was never stated either by the Petitioners or their sponsorers that banks were not working on August 6, August 7, 2000. It is further clear that over and above prospectus (general) as well as NRI/NRI sponsored candidates that such candidates had to pay admission fees in US Dollars, all the Petitioners were informed vide a communication dated July 25, 2000, that their admissions were subject to payment of admission fees in US Dollars. That condition was made uniformly applicable to all candidates similarly situated. Inasmuch as the said condition was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the prospectus, no grievance could be made by the Petitioners. As admissions fees were not paid by the Petitioners within the period stipulated, they cannot claim admission nor this court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the University to extend the outer limit nor hold such a condition as arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of right of the Petitioners. In our opinion, from the day one, NRI/NRI sponsored candidates were informed and made aware that in case they get admission under that scheme, they had to pay admission fees in US Dollars. The condition was made uniformly applicable to all. It was, therefore, for them to make necessary arrangements for foreign exchange to pay admission fees within time. In case of non-compliance of the condition, it was open to the University as stated in the notification of August 5, 2000, that the seats remaining vacant will be offered to the candidates placed in the waiting list without any further notice. The said action also, therefore, was neither illegal nor improper. (See Rabindranath Mukhopadhyay and Another Vs. Coal India Ltd. and Another, ; Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander Shekhar and Another,
In CWP No. 575 of 2000, the grievance of the Petitioners was that though all the candidates had to bring original certificates/testimonials/documents, some candidates did not bring original certificates/testimonials/documents with them. According to the Petitioners, two selected candidates, Karan Sehgal and Deepika Bhatia Joshi, at serial Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, did not bring original certificates/testimonials/documents. Likewise, from waiting list, Vikram Guleria at serial No. 1, Sandeep Gupta at serial No. 2, Arun Kumar at serial No. 3, Shaveta Sood at serial No. 4 and Nitika Sharma at serial No. 7 had not brought original certificates/testimonials/documents. They, therefore, could not have been allowed, consideration of their cases was inconsistent with, contrary to and violative of terms and conditions of prospectus and placement of those candidates either in Select List or in the waiting list was illegal. Accordingly, the Petitioners who had carried original certificates/testimonials/documents ought to have been selected.
In an affidavit filed by the University, it was stated that it was impracticable to insist NRI sponsorer to part with his passport/green card, etc. Hence, attested copies/fax copies were taken into cognizance by the Admission Committee in pursuance of a decision taken by the Academic Council vide Item No. 1 in its meeting held on July 30, 2000. According to the University, Academic Council is the competent body to take such a decision u/s 15 of the Act.
Item No. 1 was also reproduced in the counter affidavit, which read as under:
Item No. 1 of Academic Council.-To consider the matter of admission of NRI/NRI sponsored candidates to B.Sc. (Agri)/B.V.Sc. and AH programme.
The Academic Council considered the detailed note annexed at "A" on the above cited subject and decided as under:
Original certificates of 10+2 standard were seen by the Admission Committee under clause 11 of the prospectus for the session 2000-2001 two documents i.e. photocopies of passport and copy of NR card/employment card were required to be supplied. Since the original copies of the document cannot be produced before the admission committee technically photocopies be considered for the purpose as genuine as contained in clause 11 (i) and (ii) as well as in the case of sponsorship letter/certificate.
Therefore, the Academic Council after detailed discussion decided in majority (i.e. 10-1) that merit should not be ignored and the candidate be admitted as per merit placed. The council further decided that faxed documents be also considered as genuine documents. No document received after 25.7.2000 is to be entertained.
It was also the case of the Respondent-university that photo copies/faxed documents, etc. of passport/green card, etc. were considered but academic certificates, etc. were considered/perused in original and admissions were given on merits. It was stated all Respondents No. 3 to 9 complied with the requirements.
The contesting Respondents also vide affidavit dated September 24, 2000, submitted that the action of the University was in consonance with law. According to them, relevant clauses of prospectus laid down that copies were to be submitted of certain certificates/testimonials/documents, and the Respondents fulfilled the said requirement. It was also stated that as per Clause 4.22 (2), selected candidates were to appear in person before the Admission Committee along with original certificates, which were to be scrutinised by the committee and thereafter the Registrar was to notify the list of selected candidates. Since the said requirement was complied with, the Petitioners could not raise objection.
In our opinion, the grievance raised by the Petitioners has no basis as the University had acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the prospectus and the students who were either selected or kept in the waiting list produced certificates/testimonials/documents, etc. either in original or copies as per the requirement under the prospectus. It, therefore, cannot be said that the University had committed illegality in permitting them to produce copies instead of original documents nor it can be concluded that the students who were placed in the select/waiting list had not fulfilled conditions of prospectus.
The last petition (CWP No. 595 of 2000) is filed by Mayur Varshney, who is also one of the Petitioners of CWP No. 575 of 2000. He has no doubt disclosed the fact of filing previous petition. According to him, however, the second petition was necessitated in view of subsequent development namely, that the Respondent-university has illegally permitted Respondent No. 4 Sandeep Gupta to change sponsorer and permitted him to pay admission fees by another sponsorer. According to the Petitioner, the action of the University was illegal, arbitrary and it had been taken with a view to favour Mr. Gupta and was, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. A prayer was hence made to quash admission of Respondent No. 4 by directing Respondent-University to admit the Petitioner to the course of B.V.Sc. and AH.
The petition was resisted by the Respondent-University by filing an affidavit. It was stated that the requirement as to NRI/NRI sponsored seat was perpetual and it was not given up. The requisite foreign exchange was to come from NRI''s account. According to the University, at the time of submission of application, Respondent No. 4 had given name of one Mrs. Reshma Marydadria of London as his sponsorer. At the time of registration on August 10, 2000, however, he had produced photocopies of (i) sponsor letter dated 23.7.2000; (ii) renewal contract agreement with Petroleum Development Oman, and (iii) relevant pages of passport and visa of R.S. Pun. Over the above those documents, Respondent No. 4 also submitted a certification letter dated August 8, 2000 from Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, 12. The Mall, Shimla, certifying that DD No. 1599 dated August 8, 2000 issued by the State Bank of India, Shimla, for Rs. 1,84,000 in favour of controller, HPKV, Palampur, was purchased to the debit of S.B. Account No. NRE 12042 of Mr. R.S. Pun by issuing SBI cheque No. 721072 in favour of SBI.
In the above circumstances, according to Respondent-University the eligibility conditions laid down in Clause 11 of NRI Prospectus were complied with by Respondent No. 4 and the decision to give admission to him was according to law.
Similar is the affidavit of contesting Respondent No. 4, Sandeep Gupta. He stated that he had complied with the terms and conditions of the prospectus as also letter dated July 24, 2000, and hence, the Petitioner had no right to make grievance against his admission.
We see considerable force in the submissions of the University as well as of contesting Respondents. As stated in the counter-affidavit by the contesting Respondent, as per prospectus, NRI/NRI sponsored students were to pay admission fees in US Dollars. The University by reserving certain seats for NRI/NRI sponsored students wanted foreign exchange. Such foreign exchange must come from legal and lawful source. That is why, in the prospectus itself, it has been clarified that it must be by a draft and the transaction must be through a bank. There is no prohibition in prospectus that once a name is given of a particular sponsorer, he can never be changed. As stated in the affidavit-in-reply, in certain circumstances a candidate may have to change his/her sponsorer. For instance, at the time of submission of application a student gives name of a particular sponsorer but at the time of payment of fees, such sponsorer may not be available or may not be in a position to pay admission fees. Can it be said that a candidate who has given name of that sponsorer cannot prosecute study and will be ineligible to get admission for that reason. In our opinion, the answer must be in the negative. Again, B.V.Sc. and A.H. course is of five years. Fees are also to be paid periodically. Now suppose during the course of study such a sponsorer dies or is unable to pay future fees, can it be contended that the student cannot study further and had to leave the course from the middle. Obviously, not. Therefore, even that contention does not impress us. In our view, therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the University of permitting change of sponsorer is illegal. Moreover, when a decision is taken by the University in respect of academic matters, ordinarily, a High Court does not interfere with it in absence of strong reasons to do so. (Vide, Bhushan Uttam Khare Vs. The Dean, B.J. Medical College and others, ; Preeti Mittal, Etc. Etc. Vs. Gaganjot Kaur Saira and Others, Etc. Etc.,
For the foregoing reasons, all the petitions deserve to be dismissed and they are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Before parting with the matters, we may note one submission made on behalf of almost all students. It was stated that there are sufficient seats in B.V. Sc. and A.H. in the Respondent-University and all the students can be admitted and accommodated. It was, therefore, prayed that an appropriate direction may be issued to the University to admit the Petitioners. Our attention in this connection was invited to a decision in State of Orissa and Another Vs. Dr Asim Kumar Mohanty and Others, In that case, the High Court had directed to give admission which was objected by the State before the Supreme Court. Considering the fact that no such objection was raised by the State in the High Court and also that the time to get admission was since long over and none of the waitlisted candidates came forward to press his/her claim, the objection raised by the State was not upheld.
In our opinion, however, as per settled law, a High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should not issue mandamus ordering the University to admit the students who have approached the Court. Such admissions must be on merits. In the words of Krishna Iyer, J.; "The measure is academic excellence, not litigative persistence". (Vide State of Kerala Vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana and Another, . Such practice of directing the authorities to admit the Petitioners was also disapproved by the Apex Court (Vide Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Manpreet Singh and others,
In the-facts and circumstances of the-case, in our considered opinion, ends of justice will be met if we direct the Respondent-University to consider cases of eligible candidates on merits and to give admission on that basis. It was stated at the Bar that several students who were not granted admission in B.V.Sc. and A.H. Course have already taken admission in other courses and they are no more interested in the course in question. If it is so, the University will also consider that relevant and important fact and try to accommodate other students including the Petitioners on the basis of merits.
CMP No. 971 of 2000 in CWP No. 554 of 2000
CMP No. 1004 of 2000 in CWP No. 575 of 2000
CMP No. 1008 of 2000 in CWP No. 577 of 2000
CMP No. 1022 of 2000 in CWP No. 592 of 2000
CMP No. 595 of 2000 in CWP No. 1030 of 2000.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, all the applications also stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.