Peyush And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Kiran Kasniya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4354/2020) and other connected petitions, decided on 29.06.2020. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

"30. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent law cited, this Court finds an unchallenged and all acceptable norm prevailing for admissions in AHDP Course, in which the vacant State seats were to be filled by the respective college(s) from amongst the candidates who applied under the management quota, while treating them to be management seats.

On a bare perusal of Annexure-3 of WP No.4275/2020 (letters dated 27.10.2009, 23.10.2010, 17.10.2011, 01.11.2012, 24.11.2014 and 12.01.2017), it is established that if the State seats remain vacant after the counselling, the same was to be filled up by the respective Institutions, while following the same eligibility criteria as published in the respective advertisement.

Apart from the aforesaid orders passed by the University and the State, it is accepted by the respondents that the modus operandi until now, for more than a decade, was that the vacant seats were permitted to be filled by the respective college(s), which shall be accepted by the University as well as State Government, as valid admissions to the AHDP Course.

The University, which is the best Expert Body in the academic matters and which could have explained the reason for not permitting students, like the present petitioners, to be admitted in the AHDP Course, has miserably failed to point out any such reason, which could reflect a consideration being made by the expert committee to arrive at a conclusion that such vacant seats should not be filled by the Institution(s) concerned. The sole reason given by the respondent-University to arrive at a decision of not permitting such admissions is minutes dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure-R/1 of reply of State to WP No.4275/2020), which is reiteration of the meeting held on 31.07.2019.

A bare reading of the aforementioned minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019 clearly points out that the Counselling Board/Admission Board was to forward proposals to the State Government in respect of the seats remaining vacant under the State quota with the justified comments, upon which the State Government was to take final decision. However, at the cost of repetition, relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019, as reproduced in the reply filed on behalf of the State/respondents and reproduced hereinabove, reads as under:

c) After the conclusion of 2 nd round of counseling, the Counseling Board / Admission Board shall forward the proposals to the State Government in respect of seats remaining vacant under State Quota with justified comments upon the State Government will take final decision.

Thus, the State as well as the respondent- University are at complete loss to explain their stand that as to how a final decision regarding not giving admissions in the AHDP Course had already been taken in pursuance of the minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019. A bare perusal of the minutes dated 08.08.2019 of the meeting held on 31.07.2019 points out that until now, in respect of the AHDP Course, such vacant seats were being filled by the concerned Institution(s); however, for the purpose of the academic session 2019-20, the decision regarding such vacant seats was left open to be taken by the State Government.

The stand of the State and the respondent- University is laid on a very weak foundation, as they have tried to justify their decision on the ground that they have already taken a decision to the effect that the admissions on such vacant seats are not to be given and the same has been communicated to the concerned Institution(s), whereas to the contrary, the language of aforementioned minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019 has clearly kept a ray of hope in the mind of the students that the fate of the vacant seats shall be determined by the State in future, which shall be final.

The State as well as the University have miserably failed to point out even a single line in the minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019, which could reflect that a final decision has been taken stipulating that the admissions on the vacant seats of the Course shall not be granted by the Institution(s) concerned, and in the event of any such admission being granted, the same shall not be acceptable to the State or the University, in future. In absence of a straight decision, the students cannot be laid at fault to have gone in for the vacant seats, which were admittedly being continuously filled by the concerned Institution(s) for more than a decade, as a settled legal practice/norm.

Leave apart the students, the respondent-University itself was hopeful that a final decision regarding such vacant seats would be taken by the State, and for this, repeated letters were written to the State Government, one of which was Annexure-R/2 dated 14.11.2019 (annexed with reply of University to WP No.4354/2020).

The conduct of the respondent-University as well as the State is very clear, and their minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019 as well as the correspondence have reflected that a final decision regarding the vacant seats was yet to be taken, and thus, they have misled the students to believe that like past ten years and more, this year also such a decision shall be taken, and therefore, there is no reason why an adverse decision be taken, while doing away with the past precedent applicable for such a long time.

Moreover, from the record it is clear that the first final decision regarding vacant seats of the AHDP Course for the academic session 2019-20 has been communicated by the State only on 20.03.2020, when the State came out with a cryptic letter stating that the learned Advocate General opined that the admissions in the Course on the left over seats for the academic session 2019-20 cannot be made after 31.10.2019. This is the first demonstrable thinking of the denial made by the State and the University, and thus, if any action is taken by the students, particularly to seek admission in the Course, in view of a continuing norm, rule and modus operandi being adopted for last so many years, then there is no reason why the students can be blamed for such an action on their part to take such risk of getting the provisional admission through the Institution(s) concerned.

Upon being repeatedly asked, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondent- University have miserably failed to point out any slightest indication from the record to show a categorical decision having been arrived at, prior to 20.03.2020, stipulating that the vacant seats shall not to be filled by the Institution(s)/College(s) concerned.

The total rebuttal reflected in the reply and documents filed by the State as well as the respondent- University lays weight on the minutes of the meeting held on 31.07.2019, wherein too, the conclusions are inconclusive, as the decision regarding the vacant seats for the academic session 2019-20 for AHDP Course has been left open to the discretion of the State, and it is needless to say that the discretion of the State on record for last eleven years has been that the vacant seats can be filled by the concerned Institution(s)/College(s).

There is no quarrel regarding the eligibility of the students, the present petitioners, who have already taken admission in the Course and deposited the requisite fee.

Upon being asked, a categorical statement was made by learned counsels for the petitioners that all the students, including the present petitioners, had taken admission in the Course much prior to the distinctive denial made by the State Government vide letter dated 20.03.2020.

The interim orders granted by this Court in these matters earlier had already given a right to the petitioners to be in the class, and this Court is making no intervention as far as minimum eligibility criteria, including requisite attendance is concerned, but certainly expects that if such eligibility criteria is fulfilled, the petitioners cannot be denied the right to complete their AHDP Course (academic session 2019-20).

This Court does not wish to substitute its wisdom over the discretion which are available with the State of Rajasthan and the University, but certainly cannot permit them to make a mockery of the academic courses by exercising their discretion in such a casual and dilapidated manner.

This Court is peeved by the way in which the student matters are being handled by the State Government and the respondent-University, and thus, this Court is constrained to make intervention, while in normal course, the Courts ought to keep restraint in interfering with the admission processes of the academic courses.

It is a settled law that the procedure of such admission processes, which includes eligibility criteria and other conditions should be best left to the experts, but due to the manner in which the dillydally is reflected in the documents on record in the present writ petitions, this Court is left with no other option but to come to the rescue of the hapless students, more particularly, when in the present case, the fate of the vacant seats was not made clear in the advertisement issued on 22.07.2019. The online counselling instructions also did not have any clarity on the issue. The crucial minutes of meeting held on 31.07.2019 kept the issue of vacant seats open for consideration. The first communicable decision on record, as mentioned above, admittedly is only dated 20.03.2020.

In view of what has been discussed and observed hereinabove, this Court finds the concept of 'legitimate expectation' to be very pertinent for the present adjudication.

'Legitimate Expectation' means that a person may have a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by public authorities owing, amongst others, to some consistent practice in the past by the concerned authority. According to this concept, a public authority can be made accountable in lieu of a legitimate expectation. Thus, the doctrine of legitimate expectation pertains to the relationship between an individual and a public authority.

Legitimate expectation, obviously, is not a legal right, but it is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from an established practice. The term 'established practice' refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. In short, a person can be said to have a 'legitimate expectation' of a particular treatment, if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. Therefore, it can be said that this doctrine is a form of a check on the administrative or public authority.

The necessity for application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation arises when an administrative Body, by reason of a past practice or conduct, stirred an expectation into the mind of the concerned individual, which would be within its powers to accomplish, unless some superseding public interest comes in the way. However, the respondent-University as well as the State have completely failed to show from the record such superseding public interest involved herein, which is coming in their way to follow the past practice prevailing for last more than a decade, regarding admissions on the vacant seats in the AHDP Course.

In the opinion of this Court, the present petitioners have completely been able to make out their case for justifying the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the present case, as the legitimate expectation arose in the minds of the students (the present petitioners), by the past practice of the State as well as University, that they shall also be treated in the like manner, while dealing with vacant seats of AHDP Course. Thus, the past practice, which is a condition precedent for application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and which is prevailing for more than a decade, is clearly discernible from the facts of the present case.

Thus, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions:

(i) All eligible candidates who have paid their fee and have taken admission in the Course on the vacant seats after the second counselling and prior to the communication dated 20.03.2020, such admissions shall stand validated.

(ii) The State shall give requisite permission for conducting the AHDP Course for Academic Session 2019-20 accordingly, to the University and the College(s) concerned for legalizing the admissions on vacant seats after the second counselling. All other eligibility criteria and essential conditions shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned.

(iii) The present judgment shall apply to all the students, who have already taken admission in AHDP Course for the Academic Session 2019-20 on vacant seats after second counselling; however, in future, while taking the necessary decision, the respondents are directed to lay down their specific policy and norm/rule regarding filling up of the vacant seats categorically in the advertisement itself or before the final counselling, so that the students stand cautioned at the threshold itself, regarding their ultimate fate and are not left in a lurch on account of delayed decision-making.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of."

In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms. All the pending applications stand disposed of.