Sahad Hussain Mazumder vs Cotton University And Ors

Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ

Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the writ appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4

and Mr. K. Gogoi, counsel for the respondent no.4.

The writ appellant/writ petitioner before this Court is aggrieved of the order dated 19.11.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.3588/2020, whereby this

writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appellant/writ petitioner had a limited grievance for which he approached this Court, by filing a writ petition. The writ appellant/writ

petitioner was an applicant for the undergraduate course which is called “B.A. Honours in Persianâ€. The advertisement dated 23.07.2020

published by the Cotton University (from hereinafter referred to as “the Universityâ€), undoubtedly states that there will be ten seats available for

this undergraduate course in Persian, and it further states that the University will not hold the course in case there are less than 50% students for the

said course. In other words, had there been less than five students, the University was not to hold that course. The writ appellant/writ petitioner

applied for the said course by logging into the University website on 31.07.2020 and successfully completed the first phase of the admission process.

However, when the writ appellant/writ petitioner tried to login the link of the University website again 02.09.2020, for further completion of his

admission process, then after giving access to the writ appellant/writ petitioner for uploading his details in the website, the site was suddenly closed

down and the access was denied. Thereafter, on 04.09.2020, the writ appellant/writ petitioner submitted a representation through email to the

respondent University stating that he was unable to login the website of the University and had to face difficulty for completing the admission process.

The University replied that there was a stipulation in the advertisement itself that the University authorities will not admit any student in any of the

given subject if the total of the admitted students did not meet the requirement of 50% of the seats for the subject concerned. Since the writ

appellant/writ petitioner is the sole candidate for the undergraduate Persian Course, he will not be granted admission. Aggrieved by the said order, the

writ appellant/writ petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court.

The contention of the writ appellant/writ petitioner did not find favour before the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed, against

which the writ appellant/writ petitioner filed the instant writ appeal before this Court. Undoubtedly, there was a clear stipulated terms and conditions in

the advertisement that the undergraduate course in Persian will only be imparted if the students strength is five or more. If it is less than five, course

will not start. The admitted position is that the writ appellant/writ petitioner was the only candidate who had applied for the said course. There is no

dispute as to the eligibility of the writ appellant/writ petitioner. It is an admitted position that the writ appellant/writ petitioner has all the qualifications

for being admitted in the said course, which is “B.A. Honours in Persianâ€​.

The denial of admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner looks logical when we only see the terms and conditions of the advertisement. But we

have to examine it on a broader perspective. Cotton University was earlier known as the “Cotton College†which is one of the premier institutes

of the entire North East India. Students, particularly from the North East region of the country aspire to study in this University. The University must

have a reasonable cause for denying admission to a student, who is otherwise qualified. On our pointed queries, there are only two reasons given by

the University for denying admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner. One was that he was wrongfully given an access to the admission and

therefore after half an hour the access was denied. But the real reason given is that since he is the only candidate for the Persian Course, the

University is well within its right to deny admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner. Mr. P.D. Nair, the learned counsel for the University has now

informed us that there are presently two Associate Professors and one Assistant Professor, i.e. a total of three teachers. In the affidavit which we

have before this Court, it is submitted that one of the Associate Professors will retire shortly on attaining the age of superannuation. In any case, the

University will have one Associate Professor and one Assistant Professor i.e. two teachers. We have further been informed that there are only five

students in the postgraduate course in Persian and two Ph.D scholars. In other words, there are only seven students in the University and there are

presently three teachers to teach them. It is not the case of the University that they are going to discontinue with the services of these teachers, even

though it has been submitted before this Court that the University is actively thinking of discontinuing the “B.A. Honours in Persian†in future.

This may be so but the fact remains that when the admitted position is that the University has presently three teachers, their denial of admission to the

writ appellant/writ petitioner does not seem to be reasonable for the simple reason that there are enough teachers in the University to teach Persian.

Teachers are there to teach. It is not the case of the University that it is contemplating to discontinue the services of these teachers. It is also not the

case of the University that they are contemplating to teach only M.A. (Persian) or Ph.D programmes in future. One more students in the University

for undergraduate course in Persian language, will therefore, not matter and the University has absolutely no reason to deny admission to the students,

particularly when there are teachers existing in the University to impart teaching of Persian. Nothing has been stated before this Court by the learned

counsel for the University which may even remotely suggest that the University would be breaking any law or even a UGC guideline if it teaches only

one student in an undergraduate class. Once the University had advertised the course and a student has sought admission and he/she is eligible for

grant of admission, the University cannot deny admission to a student for reasons that one student is too less, and it is contemplating to discontinue the

course in future as this is the only reason which has come before us. It is true that the University had given a condition in the advertisement that if

50% of the seats remains unfilled they will not have the course. But this technical advantage cannot be given to the University. Here, the conditions

are not to be read as it ought to be in a fiscal matter or a commercial contract. We are dealing here with issues of “learningâ€, and higher

education! Simply put when the University has enough teachers, can it deny “education†to a student who seeks to learn the subject, and has all

the qualifications? The answer would be No. The University does not have a justifiable reason to deny admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner.

The writ appeal, therefore, succeeds. We set aside the order of the learned Sing Judge dated 19.11.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.3588/2020 and

issue mandamus to the respondent University to forthwith grant admission to the writ appellant/writ petitioner.