AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jia Lal Kilam, J.—This is a petition purporting to be under Article 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and Article 32(2-A) of the
Constitution of India as applied to the Jammu and Kashmir State and seeks a writ of Mandamus against respondent' 1] that his order No. 4791-R
dated 25-9-1957 directing the Principal A.S. College Srinagar to cancel the admission of the petitioner to the second year class be quashed.
It is. further prayed that a writ of Mandamus he issued against respondent 2 directing him to admit the petitioner to the 2nd year class of the A.S.
College and that he be allowed to appear in the intermediate Examination of 1958. It is further prayed that respondent 2 be directed to submit the
admission form of the petitioner to the University along with the other candidates for appearing in the said examination.
There is also Anr. submission that any other appropriate order or direction which maybe thought fit be also issued as the circumstances may call.
The petitioner in support of his petition has made the following allegations:
Thus petitioner has passed the Cambridge School Examination from the Saint Joseph's Academy Dehra Dun in 1957. Having appeared in the
said examination"" in December 1956, the petition proceeds that the result of the said examination was declared on 5-4-1957. The petitioner having
been declared successful, his result was communicated to the petitioner in the third week of April 1957.
The petitioner thereafter approached the Principal A.S. College Srinagar in May 1957 to seek admission to the second year class in .the said
college, but the petitioner was not admitted by the Principal on the ground that no second year class existed then. The admission to the second
year class of the A.S: College started on 15-6-1957 and continued upto 5-7-1957.
The petitioner was provisionally admitted by the Principal on 3-7-1957, but on 26-9-1957 the petitioner received a letter from the Principal A, S.
College that the, petitioner's admission was cancelled under directions of respondent No. 1. The petitioner thereupon approached respondent 1
and also the Vice-Chancellor of the University with the submission that the order cancelling the admission of the petitioner being against the
relevant statute and the University Calendar, be set aside, but that bore no fruit.
The Vice-Chancellor had once asked the petitioner to produce a certificate from the Principal A.S. College that the petitioner had approached him
in April 1957 for admission. The necessary certificate was: produced but to no effect and the petitioner therefore has made a prayer for a writ of
Mandamus as already stated.
This writ application was submitted on 18-11-1957. v Soon after Anr. application was made that pending decision of this writ application, the
petitioner be allowed to appear in the Intermediate examination to be held in 1958 and that the Principal A.S. College be directed to submit the
admission form to the University, and that the petitioner be treated as a student on the rolls of the second year class of the said college. On this
application I ordered that
pending and subject to the final determination of the writ petition submitted by Vijay Sen Anand, respondent No. 2 be directed by this interim
order to treat V.S. Anand as a student on the rolls of the A.S. College Srinagar and, submit his University admission form to the University
authorities. The respondent 1 is directed to accept the University admission form so submitted by and on behalf of the petitioner. It may be. noted
down here that this order is by no means a final order and is --and shall -- be subject to the final determination of the petition submitted by Vijay
Sen. Anand.
It is admitted that the petitioner had passed his Cambridge School Examination from the Saint Joseph's Academy Dehra Dun in 1957. This too
is established on record that after his result was announced in April 1957, the petitioner approached the Principal A.S. College for admission to the
second year class which was denied to him by the Principal on the ground that the second year class was not formed till then.
The Principal in his endt. No: 1958 dated 20-9-1957 admits all this and also admits that he could not have according to the rules admitted the
petitioner even to the first year class. Ultimately the petitioner was admitted to the second year class on 3-7-1957, but soon after in the month of
September the petitioner's admission was cancelled.
Now let us go to the relevant rules. Proviso to Rule 2(4) of the University Calendar' lays down:
Provided that a candidate who has passed either the Cambridge or the Oxford School Certificate Examination, or the Matriculation Examination of
the University of London, may be admitted to this examination (Intermediate) in the academical year following that in which he passes either of
these examinations, if he has been enrolled in a College affiliated to the University during the 12 months preceding the examination....
According to this proviso a candidate who has passed the Cambridge School certificate examination can be admitted to the Intermediate
examination in the academical year following that in which he has passed the said examination, provided that he fulfils the following condition:
that he should have been enrolled in a college affiliated to the University during 12 months preceding the examination.
A good deal of time was taken by the learned Counsel on both sides in interpreting the words: ""if he has been enrolled in a college affiliated to
the University during 12 months preceding the examination."" The petitioner's learned Counsel has argued that all that the petitioner had to do was
to get himself enrolled in a College affiliated to the University during the 12 months preceding the Intermediate Examination.
The learned Counsel has further argued that the petitioner got himself enrolled in the A.S. College Srinagar on 3-7-1957, i.e., during the 12 months
preceding the examination. His prayer therefore is that since the condition of enrolment in an affiliated college by the petitioner has been fulfilled and
that too during the 12 months preceding the examination he cannot be debarred from appearing in the Intermediate examination.
As against this, it is argued on behalf of the University that full 12 months must have elapsed between the petitioner's enrolment and the
examination. Which of the two interpretations is correct, will mostly depend upon the meaning of the words ""during"" and ""enrolment"". According to
the Webster's International. Dictionary enrol means, to ""insert in a roll; to enter in a register....
Now the word ""during"" according to the same dictionary means ""in the time of, as long as the action or existence of...."" According to the ""Words
and Phrases Judicially defined (Vol. II) by Barrow the meaning of the word ""during"" has to be determined by the context. For instance, somebody
may say that A fell ill during the reign of Jehangir or A remained ill during the reign of Jehangir.
The first would obviously mean that A did not remain ill for the whole period of Jehangir's reign, but that he fell ill somewhere between the
beginning and end of Jehangir's reign. In the second case it would mean that A remained ill during the whole course of Jehangir's reign. So it is
obvious that the meaning of the word ""during"" is to be determined by the context in which it has been used.
Applying this test to find out the meaning of the word ""during"", in the present case obviously the word ""during"" would mean a point of time when
the candidate got himself enlisted in a college affiliated to the University. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University tried to argue
that the sentence in which the word ""enrolled"" occurs means that the candidate should have been on the rolls of the college affiliated to the
University during the 12 months preceding the examination.
If the word ""enrolled"" has to be understood as remaining or existing on the registers of a College, then certainly ""during"" would mean the whole
period of 12 months. But in no dictionary has such a meaning been assigned to the word ""enrolled"". It clearly means enlistment or entry in a register
etc. The meaning of the word ""enrolled"" has been further given in the Webster's International Dictionary as Follows:
to insert in a roll; to register or enter in a list or catalogue or on rolls of court, hence to record or insert in records, as to enrol men for service....
So the sentence ""if he (student) has been enrolled in a college to the University during the 12 months preceding the examination"" would mean that if
the candidate has been enlisted in a college affiliated to the University during the 12 months preceding the examination, he is eligible for appearing
in the examination. This would further mean that the enlistment or enrolment must have taken place at a point of time within 12 months preceding
the examination.
It was argued by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University that such an interpretation would mean that if a candidate were enrolled
in a College affiliated to the University on the last date of the 12 months preceding the examination he would be still entitled to sit for the
examination., This position the learned Counsel argued, might lead to ridiculous results. But the learned Counsel has clean forgotten that there are
rules made by the University regulating admission to the Colleges affiliated to it.
According to these rules no candidate can be admitted to a college after the date when the admission closes. In the present case the admission
started on 15-6-1957 and ended on 5-7-1957. After 5th July nobody could seek admission, nor could have the petitioner by any human effort,
been able to get himself admitted to a college. Obviously no such result as feared by the learned Counsel would follow.
On the contrary if the words ""during the 12 months"" are understood to mean during the whole period of 12 months, that would mean that no
Cambridge candidate can avail of the facility that has been given to him by the said rule, because 12 months before the examination there were no
second year classes as has been pointed out by the Principal A.S. College, and as such the candidate would have to wait for Anr. 12 months
before he could get admission, which would mean that a concession given by one hand is taken by the other. That indeed is ridiculous.
In the present case the University has cancelled the admission of the petitioner to the second year class of the A.S. College. The Principal A.S.
College has very rightly pointed out that the admission of the petitioner to the College could not be cancelled. All that the University, according to
the Principal could do in this case, was to debar the petitioner from appearing in the examination.
The petitioner sought admission somewhere in May, but the Principal refused him admission, because there was no second year class existing in
his; college at that time. There was also no rule which would have enabled the Principal to admit the petitioner to the first year class. If the
interpretation as given by the University be adhered to, then as already stated, I am afraid no Cambridge Examination passed student can avail
himself of the concession in the same spirit in which the University rule makers have extended to him.
Taking all this into consideration, I direct that a writ of Mandamus be issued to respondents 1, 2 and 3 that the cancellation of the petitioner's
admission to the A.S. College Srinagar and his being debarred from appearing in the Intermediate Examination are both against University rules
and therefore ultra vires of the powers vested in the respondents, and that the petitioner was rightly admitted to the A.S. College Srinagar on 3-7-
1957 and that he was eligible to sit for the Intermediate examination, which, I am told, he did as a result of my interim order dated 6-3-1958.
I further direct that the respondents be directed to declare the result of the petitioner along with other Intermediate candidates on the due date.