Sayeed Mohd.Raza and Ors. vs University of Jammu and Anr.

The petitioners, three in number, are Iranians. They came to India for higher studies. They graduated themselves from the University of Jammu.

They passed B.Sc. (Final) examination from the Jammu University securing 62.3%, 61.57% and 60.07% from out of total marks allotted to

Geology. They applied for M.Sc. Geology corse in the Jammu University pursuant to notice issued by the said University on 1281983. A list of

selected candidates for the Geology course was issued by the Head of the Department of Geology, University of Jammu, the 2nd respondent in

this case. The petitioners were ranked as numbers 11, 34 and 19 respectively. This list is AnnexureI. They were to produce the relevant

certificates and deposit fee by the 10th of September, 1983. The 1st petitioner deposited his fee with the Department and obtained a proper

receipt (AnnexureII). Subsequently, on 1391983, the 2nd respondent issued notice No. 383/6 cancelling the admission of the petitioners. It is this

cancellation order that is under challenge in this writ petition.

The cancellation order is challenged on the ground that the petitioners had secured a right by their inclusion in to original list, as being violative of

the promise held out in the Brochure issued by the University and also as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The 1st respondent is the University of Jammu. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the maintainability of the petition itself, is

challenged. It states that the petition does not disclose any acceptable ground to make out that there has been any violation of either a statutory or

legal right of the petitioners. The petitioners are foreign nationals and do not enjoy any fundamental rights under the Constitution. The University

statutes governing grant and refusal of admission also do not create any right in favour of a foreign national.

The total number of seats available with the University in the Department of Geology is only 30. There is no department of Geology in the

University of Kashmir, Thus the University of Jammu, Geology Department has to cater to the demands of students from both the Universities.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir offers free education to students in that State so that it can improve the educational standard of students born

in that State. This concession is unique in whole of the country. If this concession is allowed to be made use of by people outside the State and by

foreign nationals, it would result in denial of opportunities to the students in the State thus frustrating the very purpose for which free education is

afforded to the students of the State.

6 The petition is had for the additional reason that the students who will be affected by an order in favour of the petitioners in this case, have not

been impleaded. No relief can granted in their absence.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, in his attempt to secure relief for the petitioners, put forward the following contentions:

i) The deletion of the petitioners from the list on the ground that they are foreign nationals results in hostile discrimination against them, which is

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

ii) The petitioners were originally included in the list. One of them even had deposited the fee. They had thus secured a right of admission to the

Geology course. This right has been taken away without giving them notice and without hearing them. This is a gross violation of the principles of

natural justice ;

iii) The Brochure issued by the University held out a promise to intending applicants that they could secure admission in the all courses on merit

irrespective of their nationality. The petitioners acted on this promise to their detriment. But for this promise they would have taken their chance in

other courses. The deletion of their names from the list after holding out this promise, is bad in law and the University is estopped from doing so.

The submissions so made are attractive and specious. The eloquent tribute that the petitioners counsel gave to the philosophy behind Art. 14 as

giving protection not only to the citizens of this Country but to every person, is heartening. It is, of course to the glory of our Constitution that Art

14 extends its winged protection to all irrespective of rationality. The expanse of Art. His now much wider than when it was conceived. Even so its

confines have its limitations also If foreign nationals taking protection under Art. 14 fill up the Universities of this country because of their

meritorious performance in examinations, the indigenous products will have to baulk in the sun without access to the educational institutions. The

generosity of Article 14 to foreign nationals cannot be extended to this extent to defeat the interests of Indian nationals. In this case it is true that the

petitioners were also included in the list of admissions but the list is deliberately termed as provisional one. It is presumptuous to contend that the

inclusion in a provisional list confers on a student, whose name occurs in that list, an automatic right of admission What has happened in this case is

this; the total number of seats available for Geology in the University is 30. The authorities deliberated over the percentage of seats to be given to

foreign nationals. They decided to give 10 parcent seats to such students. Three Iranians students had already been admitted. In all 7 such students

applied. All could not be provided. In the counter affidavit by the Registrar, it is stated that a mistake was committed in preparing the provisional

list by the department of Geology. The list including the petitioners also was prepared under the mistaken impression that all foreign nationals who

had passed the qualifying examination from the University of Jammu, were entitled to .be treated at part with the students of the State of Jammu

and Kashmir. On disclosure of this mistake, the matter was investigated into. This was necessitated by the representations made by certain

students to the Head of the Department. The question was referred to committee headed by the ViceChancellor. This committee came to the

conclusion that the statute incorporated in the Brochure, issued by the University of Tammu applied only to Indian nationals and not to foreign

students seeking admission to a course of study in the University. This committee, however, decided that 10 percent of the total number of seats in

every teaching department of the University be reserved for such students and that they should not be denied admission in toto. AnnexureRA is the

minutes of the said committee. Statute 23 of the Brochure provides that the decision of this Committe is binding on all concerned. It was pursuant

to this that the petitioner's names were deleted from the list.

Conceding for the purpose of this case that Article 14 can rescue the petitioners from hostile discrimination, despite they being foreign nationals,

their deletion can be justified on the ground. That they belong to a separate class distinct from the students belonging to the Jammu and Kashmir

State and the vice of discrimination cannot be pressed into service to sustain their claim for admission in the course. The petitioners have no case

that among themselves, namely, Iranians of foreign nationals, there has been hostile discrimination. The discrimination in this case, has been with the

avowed object of achieving the upliftment of the educational standards of the State of the Jammu and Kahsmir and deletion of the names of the

petitioners; even if discriminatory, is permissible under the Constitution and in law. This ground therefore, fails

The next contention urged by the petitioner's counsel is that the deletion of the names was made without hearing them that they had acquired a

vested tight by their inclusion in the last. The initial infirmity in this submission is the assumption that inclusion in a provisional list confers a right to be

enforced. The list which is AnnexureI, begins as ""The provisional admission is granted to the following candidates"". Provisional means something

which is not final. It cannot be said that the petitioners got bested lights by a provisional admission. The admission given was purely on a mistaken

impression. This mistake was discovered. The interpretation committee headed by the University's Vice Chancellor, corrected the mistake by

limiting the seats to students with foreign nationality to 10 percent. It is not necessary to tell students like the petitioners before hand that the

committee is going to take such a decision. To tell them before hand or to seek their explanation would only be an exercise in futility. The seats

were, in fact, intended only for students from the State. The committee acted with propriety and impartiality by deciding to give 10 percent of the

seats to foreign nationals There is no question of natural justice coming in a situation like this. The plea of violation of natural justice has to fail on

both the grounds; namely (1) that the petitioners have no right to enforce by the mer inclusion of the names in the list and (2) that the principles of

natural justice are not attracted in this case.

The plea based on promissory estoppel feebly put forward by the petitioners' counsel has only to be stated to be rejected. The University

caters largely to the educational needs of the students of the State of Jammu and Rasmir. If the petitioners understood the Brochure to mean that it

contained a general promise held out to students of foreign original also, they have only to thank themselves. It redounds to the credit of the

University that 10 percent of the seats was alloted to students from outside. The principle of promissory estoppel do not come into operation. This

plea also fails

The respondents counsel contended that the petitioner was bad since affected students were not made parties According to him, no effective

relief can be granted in their absence. They were not only proper parties but necessary parties. This plea was met by the petitioners' counsel relying

upon a Division Bench decision of the *Punjab & Haryana 8 and on a full bench of the Patna High Court reported in AIR 1979 Patna 266. In

those case nonimpleadment of students to be affected, was not held to be proper ground to defeat the petition. Those cases can be easily

distinguished from the case in hand. There the entire list of admissions was challenged as being violative of several rights guaranted by the

Constitution. The case on hand is different. Here we have peculiar situation of foreign nationals seeking to displace Indian nationals en the ground

of higher marks that they secured and also on the ground that they should be treated at par with the students of the State. Here the success of the

petitioners would affect three students from the Jammu and Kashmir State. This is not a case of the entire list being invalidated. Students to be

affected are, therefore, not only proper parties, but necessary parties. No effective relief can be granted to the petitioner without the students to be

affected on the party array. This objection, has. therefore, to be sustained and it has to be held that the petition is bad for this reason also.

For the foregoing reasons I hold that the petition has to fail. It is accordingly dismissed.