ANKUR VAHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal Writ Petition a challenge has been laid to the decision of the Indian Institute of Foreign Technology sic Trade (hereinafter called the IIFT) removing the Petitioner from the Masters in Business Administration, 2002-2004 conducted by it. The Petitioner had applied to the IIFT while he was in the Final Year of Engineering and had scored 650 marks out of 800 in the Graduate Management Aptitude Test (GMAT). All students were required to submit their eligibility qualification, in the present case the Engineering Degree, as well as the Mark Sheet, on or before 3rd October, 2002, In paragraph 6 of the Petition it has been specifically pleaded that "the respondents had stated at the time of selection that in case the Petitioner does not get 50% in the Bachelor Degree Engineering Examination and fails to submit the result by 3rd October,2002, his admission will stand cancelled.....Thus admission of the Petitioner was on provisional basis subject to the filing of the Mark Sheet." This is indeed a significant admission. The result of the Engineering Degree was declared in August/ September, 2002 and the Petitioner was shown as 'Failed', having obtained 850 out of 1500 mark:. He thereupon applied for Revaluation on 2nd September, 2002. The Petitioner has averred that he immediately informed the Respondents in the 1st week of September, 2002 that he had applied for Revaluation of his result and that he would submit his Mark Sheet as and when he would be conveyed the result of the Revaluation. This statement has been categorically denied by the IIFT, and in the absence of. any documentary proof on such an important issue, I would accept the stand of the IIFT. It is not in dispute that the First Semester examinations were held on 15.9.2002, that is before the deadline of submission of results i.e 3.10.2002 and hence the Petitioner was allowed to appear in these examinations. It has next been pleaded in the Petition that in the third week of September, 2002 the Petitioner went to Pune where he was informed that the University would announce the Revaluation result in November, 2002. It is stated that the Petitioner orally informed the IIFT that the results would be declared in the third week of November, 2002, but he was not permitted to attend classes. The Petitioner's Representation dated 17.10.2002 was considered by the Rules Committee of IIFT in its meeting held on 31.10.2002 but was rejected. On 25/29 November,2002, the University of Pune, after the revaluation exercise, declared the Petitioner as having passed the B.E. Degree Course and that he had been placed in Second Class. The Certificate and Mark Sheet dated 29th November, 2002 was submitted by the Petitioner to the IIFT on 3rd December, 2002.

(2.) Although no challenge has been laid to the fixation of the cut-off date of 3rd October, this matter has received the attention of the Apex Courts on several occasions, the pronouncements are to the effect that cutoff dates should not be elasticized by judicial verdicts. The first opinion is to be found in Union of India and Another Vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 212 which reads thus:

(3.) Ms. Pinki Anand has contended that even if the sanctity of 3rd October, 2002 is kept intact, the Petition should still be allowed because on the results being declared in November/December, 2002, this event would relate back to the initial declaration of the results. To make good her arguments she has relied on the following paragraphs of Prashant SrivastavaVs. C.B.S.E. & Ors,, 88(2000) Delhi Law Times 538 (DB), which reads thus: "Our attention has been drawn to the judgment dated 7th September, 1999 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.385 of 1999 entitled Neha Kattyar v. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. The fact of that case are almost identical as that of the present case. That was also a case where the appellant had to appear in supplementary examination. She had also appeared in the PMT and was placed in merit List at S.No. 794. By the time result of this supplementary examination was declared, first round of allotment was over which she missed and she had also filed writ petition seeking direction against the respondent to allot her the seat in the second round of allotment. Although her writ petition was dismissed by the Single Bench, the Division Bench the aforesaid judgment allowed her appeal and directed the respondents to consider her at the time of second round by personal appearance as a candidate having successfully passed the qualifying examination. It was held that once the appellant passed the supplementary examination of Class XII, result of that would relate back to the first appearance in the said examination. The effect is that it would be treated as, if the candidate has passed the Class XIl examination on the date when the result was declared initially. On the basis of this analogy in the present case, it would be deemed that the" petitioner passed the Class XII examination on 30th May, 2000. The present writ petition, therefore, warrants to be allowed following the aforesaid " judgment dated 7th September, 1999 in LPA No. 385/1999. This view has however to be reconciled with that of another Division Bench of his Court which appears to have missed the attention of Ms. Anand in Bhupinder Singh Vs. DSSSB in LPA No. 621/2002 which reads thus: "In the judgment reported as 1993 Suppl.(3) SCC 166, Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the date of eligibility for appointment has to be the last date for submitting the applications. The Court held that the selection based on treating the eligibility criteria as the date of interview was patently illegal. This view was re-affirmed in the judgment reported as 1994 (2) SCC 723, U.P.P.S.C. Vs. Alpana. The respondent who had appeared for her L.L.B. degree examination but had yet to clear the same had applied for selection to the post of Munsif. The Public Service commission allowed her to appear in the examination conducted by it, but did not declare her result on the ground that she was in eligible. Respondent had in the meanwhile cleared her L.L.B. examination. She approached the High Court which allowed her writ petition holding that since she had qualified in her L.L.B. examination, her result was liable to be declared. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court holding that eligibility had to be fulfilled by the last date when the application had to be submitted. This view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment reported as 1995 Supp.(IV) SCC 706. Harpal Kaur Chahal Vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, and in the latest judgment reported as 2000 (5) SCC 262, Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab.