Vinod Nair and Bahadur Singh vs Janardan Rai Nagar University and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—The Board of Management of the Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Udaipur framed regulations of the University as per that admission to Master of Physiotherapy Course is required to be made by holding an entrance examination and by including 25% marks of under-graduation examinations and 25% marks from the personal interview.

For the educational session of 2007-2008 entrance examination was conducted and regular admissions were given to selected students. The petitioners who were working with the University as Lecturers in the College of Physiotherapy were admitted in the course of Master of Physiotherapy under an order dated 21.2.2008, though, they did not face the entrance test. The petitioners also qualified Ist year examination of the Course concerned, however, on 28.5.2009 vice-chancellor of the University cancelled their admission provisionally and that was made absolute by another order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the Registrar. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 2.3.2010 and 28.5.2010 these petitions for writ are preferred.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were admitted to the course concerned by the University in the year 2008 and thereafter, the petitioners have undergone the entire course and qualified Ist year examination, as such, there is no just reason to cancel their admissions. It is also asserted that after making regular admissions to the course concerned, the principle of estoppal warrants to stop the University from taking the action impugned. To substantiate the contentions reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of Apex Court in Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and others,

A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent University stating therein that the petitioners in view of regulations for the Master of Physiotherapy degree course with the University are not at all eligible to continue as such. The petitioners never faced the selection process and they were not at all selected for admission to Master of Physiotherapy course, therefore, cancellation of their admission, suffer from no error.

It is also pointed out that on 6.12.2007, a decision was taken by the competent committee of the University not to permit any employee of the University for admission in the course of Master of Physiotherapy. In the decision aforesaid, Principal of the Institution Shri Shailendra Mehta was also a party. Despite that, alongwith the petitioners, he too was admitted with the post-graduation course in Physiotherapy.

Learned Counsel for the respondent University urged that admission was given to the petitioner in view of a note made by the Registrar of the University under the instructions of the then Vice-chancellor to the fact that the teachers, who have already been admitted to the course be allowed to continue as such. The note aforesaid is dated 13.12.2008 and as such, the admission to the petitioners subsequent thereto is illegal. Certain facts are also stated in the reply to the writ petition regarding the wrongs made in wholesome by some officers of the University while making admissions in the course of Master of Physiotherapy.

No rejoinder to the reply has been filed by the respondents.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners accepted the position that the petitioners did not face the process of selection as prescribed under the regulations, meaning thereby, that they did not face the entrance examination. The fact that the petitioners are in employment of the respondent is also not in dispute. It is really strange that the petitioners, who were part of teaching staff of the University, knowing it well that they have not participated in entrance test applied for admission in the course concerned and got themselves admitted. While making admission to public courses, the Universities created under or by a statute are suppose to act fairly and in just manner, but in the instant matter, the benefit extended to the petitioners is same thing extra being absolutely in contravention of the regulations for admission. It is pertinent to note that the Board of Management of the University decided for not admitting its employees for post-graduation course in Physiotherapy, despite of that the Vice-chancellor made a note contrary and granted admission to the petitioners against the policy applicable for making such admissions. Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out availability of any such power to the Vice-chancellor. It is further relevant to mention here that the note made by the Registrar in pursuant to certain instructions given by the Vice-chancellor dated 3.12.2007 is and to the effect that the admission now made be cancelled. In such circumstances, even if it is assumed that the Vice-chancellor is having some power to take a decision contrary to the resolution of the Board of Management, then too admission of the petitioners is not valid.

So far as the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the University should be estopped from cancelling the admission is concerned, suffice it to mention that the petitioners knowing it well that they were not eligible for admission to the concerned course, obtained admission by adopting wrong means, thus, the doctrine of estoppal cannot be extended to the petitioners who themselves are part of a fraud played while getting admission in the course.

In view of whatever said above, the petitions for writ fail, thus are dismissed.