JUDGEMENT
K.M.Dayal, J. -
(1.)The present petition has been filed by 16 persons who claim to be students of B Ed Degree Course in Budha Post-Graduate College, Kushinagar, Doria. All the petitioners claim that they have been admitted in the college and they have paid their fees and other necessary dues per various receipts. A copy of one such receipt is filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition The petitioners thereafter appeared in the practical examination but before oberotical examination could be held they were informed by the University that their admission was not in accordance with the provisions of the rules for admission framed under Sec. 28 (5) of the State Universities Act. The case of the University is that in accordance with the rules mentioned above two lists were prepared for the candidates of the examination in question. One list of 182 students was the first list from which admissions were to be made. Another list known as waiting list was prepared in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules referred to above. According to the University the petitioners were not in any of the lists but they were admitted by the college unautaorisedly and consequently as soon as the University came to know about their being candidates, their examinations were withheld
(2.)It has strenuously been contended by he counsel for the petitioners that the University having permitted the petitioners to appear in practical examination and having allotted them roll numbers, it Was estopped from taking the stand that these students were not validly admitted to the said course, We, however, find no substance in the argument It is clear from paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the college that for the first time the intimation about the admission of the petitioners was sent to the University on 17th March, 1980. No material has been placed before us from which it can be inferred that prior to this date any intimation was sent to the University about the petitioner's admission to B. Ed. course of the said college. It is also clear from Annexure 3 of the writ petition that examination forms of these petitioners were sent to the University in the month of Feb. after practical examinations were over. The case of the college is that the Pro Vice-Chancellor Dr. Nagmdra had orally permitted the college to admit the petitioners as some and dates in the admission list and writing failed to turn up. This fact is not admitted by the University. In any case as the Pro Vice-Chancellor was not entitled to override the rules framed by the State Government under Sec. 28 (5) of the State Universities Act, even assuming that the Pro Vice-Chancellor did permit orally the admission of the students, beyond two lists against the rules, that cannot operate as estoppel against the university Under sub-section (6) of Sec. 28 of the State Universities Act the Vice-Chancellor was entitled to cancel the admission of any student made in contravention of the rules-framed under sub-section (5) of Sec. /8 of the said Act. Thus the order of the Vice-Chancellor was correct and with his jurisdiction.
(3.)In the result, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the University cancelling the admission of the petitioners. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.