AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The National Law University, Jodhpur has preferred this appeal to question correctness of the order dated 8.11.2016, passed by learned Single Bench, accepting SB Civil Writ Petition No.5272/2014, with a direction to allow the respondent herein to take admission in the sixth semester by way of transfer from Hidayatullah National Law University to National Law University, Jodhpur, after completing the necessary formalities.
The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the appeal is as follows:-
The implementation committee of the "Common Law Admission Test - 2014" (hereinafter referred to as ''CLAT-2014'') met on 16.11.2013 at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar and settled modalities to organise CLAT-2014. The committee also decided a broad manner of admission as a result to CLAT-2014.
As decided by the committee, a complete schedule of the specific activities pertaining to CLAT-2014 was also declared and according to that the CLAT-2014 Office was to be closed for admission process on 30.6.2014.
As per the schedule declared, CLAT-2014 was conducted by the Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar and subsequent thereto on 6.7.2014 it was notified that the CLAT Office shall not be allocating any provisional admissions to the vacant seats available at any of the National Law Universities and the candidates interested in seeking admission against vacant seats at any of the National Law Universities may directly contact the interested National Law University for further process. These vacant seats were open to be filled in by different National Law Universities only from amongst the candidates who participated in
CLAT-2014.
The National Law University, Jodhpur, appellant herein, initiated a process to fill up the vacant seats under Non Resident Indian (hereinafter referred to as "NRI") category. Shri Shreyansh Bhandawat, respondent herein, applied to be considered for his admission against vacant seats by claiming himself as a candidate "NRI Sponsored". The appellant university selected three candidates viz. Tanvi Annapareddy, Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle in its undergraduate course.
Being aggrieved by grant of admissions to the abovenamed three persons and non selection of himself in undergraduate course, the respondent approached Writ Court with assertion that selection of Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle was illegal as they never applied under the category of "NRI". It was also submitted that by granting admission to ineligible persons the appellant university has taken away the right of the respondent to be admitted in the course concerned.
A reply to the writ petition on behalf of the appellant university was filed with a specific stand that after completion of the process of CLAT-2014 the process for admission to vacant seats available with the university was initiated as allowed under the notification dated 6.7.2014 and that is nothing to do with CLAT-2014, except that the persons appeared in the CLAT-2014 were only eligible to be considered for admission against the vacant seats. As per the university, the vacant seats were to be filled in from amongst the persons belonging to "NRI" category and, therefore, Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle were admitted to the undergraduate course in the category aforesaid. The respondent, as per the university, did not apply for admission against the vacant seats and as such no occasion was there to consider his candidature for admission in undergraduate course against the seats vacant. It was further stated that even in the CLAT-2014 the respondent applied under the category of "NRI Sponsored" for which no seat was available while making admissions after completion of CLAT-2014 process and as per the notification dated 6.7.2014.
Learned Single Bench, after considering the arguments advanced by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the rival parties, held that in light of the undertaking given by the candidates participating in CLAT-2014, it was not open for the university to change category of the candidates and Aishwarya Murli and two candidates admitted in the undergraduate course did not apply under the "NRI" category, therefore, they were not entitled to be admitted against the seats of "NRI" quota. Learned Single Bench, while arriving at the conclusion as above, further held that if the category of two other candidates was changed, then no impediment was there in treating the respondent as a person belonging to "NRI" though he applied as "NRI Sponsored" candidate. Learned Single Bench by relying upon the document Anx.A/4 also concluded that the respondent applied on 12.7.2014 at 03:04 AM for admission in undergraduate course as per the notification dated 9.7.2014.
In appeal, on behalf of the appellant, the argument advanced is that learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the undertaking given by the candidates while participating in CLAT- 2014 is nothing to do with the admissions against the vacant seats available which were to be filled in by the university concerned independently as that is apparent from the notification dated
6.7.2014. The appellant university initiated a fresh process of selection at its own on 9.7.2014 and in pursuance thereto the persons belonging to "NRI" category were admitted in undergraduate course. The respondent herein never applied for his admission to undergraduate course in pursuance to the notification dated 9.7.2014 and as such there was no occasion for the university to consider his candidature. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that he applied as per document Anx.A/4 for admission to undergraduate course, then too he was not entitled for admission in the course concerned being a candidate said to be from the category of "NRI Sponsored".
While meeting with the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of university, Shri Sundeep Bhandawat, counsel for the respondent herein, submits that the admission to the vacant seats is not a new process of admission but in continuation to CLAT-2014. The details given in the application form while appearing in CLAT-2014 were irrevocable and, therefore, the learned Single Bench rightly held that Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle were admitted to undergraduate course though they were not from "NRI" category, as such, the respondent herein is also entitled to be admitted in the course concerned though he applied under the category of "NRI Sponsored".
We have heard the rival submissions.
The case of the respondent herein before the learned Single Bench was that in pursuance to the notification dated 9.7.2014 he applied for admission to undergraduate course, but his candidature was not considered without any just and valid reason but two other persons were admitted though they represented themselves in the categories other than "NRI" while participating in CLAT-2014. Their category in light of the undertaking given could have not been changed while examining their candidature for admission against the vacant seats. Learned Single Bench relied upon the undertaking so given, which reads as
follows:-
"I hereby affirm that the information furnished in the application form and the documents/certificate uploaded are true and no material information has been concealed. If any information is found to be false, incorrect or misleading, competent authority shall have the authority to cancel my candidature/admission without any further inquiry or notice. I undertake to abide by the Regulations and disciplinary rules already in force and such other rules that may be made by the respective Universities from time to time, if admitted. I further undertake that the categories to which I belong as indicated by me in the application form shall be irrevocable."
Learned Single Bench treated the admissions against the vacant seats as a part of CLAT-2014.
On minute examination of entire scheme of CLAT-2014, we are satisfied that the vacant seats were open to be filled in by respective National Law Universities at their own without taking into consideration the facts stated in the application forms to appear in CLAT-2014.
As already stated, the entire process of admission through CLAT-2014 was closed on 30.6.2014. On 6.7.2014 it was made clear by the competent authority of the CLAT-2014 that "CLAT Office shall not be allocating any provisional admissions to the vacant seats available at any of the National Law Universities.
The candidates interested in seeking admission against the vacant seats at any of the National Law Universities, may directly contact the interested National Law University for further process". In pursuance to the notification dated 6.7.2014, the appellant university initiated a process on 9.7.2014 for admission against vacant seats through the candidates belonging to "NRI" category
only. Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle this time applied for admission under "NRI" category and to substantiate that they also submitted certificates issued by the Embassy of India/Consulate General of India of the respective countries. Suffice to mention here that as per the norms settled, a person whose parent or any one of his/her parent is "NRI", may apply for admission in undergraduate course against the seat earmarked for "NRI" category.
Learned Single Bench, while accepting the writ petition, failed to notice the facts that the CLAT-2014 came at closure on 30.6.2014, on 6.7.2014 it was made clear that the vacant seats are required to be filled in by the respective National Law Universities independently and the aspirant for admission is required to approach the university and further that the appellant university on 9.7.2014 initiated an independent process of admission wherein Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle applied afresh by representing themselves as "NRI". So far as standing in merit of CLAT-2014 is concerned, suffice to mention that the same was taken into consideration by the appellant university only to ease the process of selection and the mere adoption of that, while considering candidature of the candidates for admission in undergraduate course, would not result into change of nature of process of admission or to say to include the fresh process of admission as a part of CLAT-2014. In view of whatever stated above, we are of considered opinion that learned Single Bench grossly erred while arriving at the conclusion that the appellant university committed a wrong while admitting Aishwarya Murli and Rishab Singhle to undergraduate course by changing their category at its own.
While parting with the case, we would also like to observe that the process of admission in the undergraduate course in question commenced in the month of July, 2014 and that came to an end immediately thereafter. The respondent herein, as a consequence to CLAT-2014, was admitted in undergraduate course at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, Chhatisgarh and on the date of the judgment by Single Bench, he was undergoing his fifth semester. As informed to us, he is now appearing in sixth semester examination. In our considered opinion, no direction for admission in sixth semester by way of transfer could have been given after a lapse of a period of more than two years and that too without ascertaining that whether the rules applicable with the Hidayatullah National Law University as well as the appellant university allows for such transfer or not. As per learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant university, such transfer is impermissible. A direction to admit a student in academic course at a belated stage may cause not only administrative bug academic problems too for the academic institutions. It is well settled that in the matters pertaining to admissions in academic institutions, the Courts are required to maintain a restrain in interference and that should not be made if the denial of the relief claimed causes enormous injury, which in no manner could have been healed otherwise. In the case in hand, as already stated, the respondent is undergoing five years law course at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur and has already qualified five semesters of the course concerned. In the event of failure of the petition for writ, his career shall not be adversely effected, whereas, the admission with appellant university at this stage shall cause huge administrative inconvenience and would cause serious injuries to the university administration. Looking to this aspect also the direction given by learned Single Bench is not sustainable.
In entirety, for the reasons given above, we are inclined to accept this appeal. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 8.11.2016 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the respondent herein is dismissed.