VINEETA SRIVASTAVA Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner she had passed her B.A. examination in the year 1982 from Lucknow University with 61.14% marks. She obtained M.A. degree from Lucknow University in the year 1984 with 59.04% However, owing to her family circumstances she could not pursue her studies further for a Ph.D. She got a job at Chetna Institute for Mentally Retarded Children, Aligarh in October 1985. She got married in November 1986 and two children were born to her, one in October 1987 and the other in October 1991. Though she was selected for L.T. Teachers Training (English Medium) for the session 1993-94 she could not continue the said programme due to the transfer of her husband. Her date of birth is 1-11-1963 and she has now completed 34 years of age. Pursuant to the prospectus released by the respondent University - Jamia Millia Islamia - the petitioner applied for admission to B.ED.. course as a general category candidate in the language group English for the session 1997-98. Her application was found to be in order and she was asked to appear in a written test held on 3-10-1997. She was also called for an interview on 13-10-1997. Based on the written test and the interview a merit list of general category candidates for the B.ED.. course (English Group) was published by the respondent University on 15-10-1997. The petitioner's name appeared in the said merit list at serial No.2. However, against her name the following remarks were given:-

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it is stated that considering the limited number of seats available, the consistent policy of the University followed and applied uniformly year after year for the past over a decade has been that cases of candidates seeking admission to courses other than Ph.D., B.E. and other part time evening courses, who gave up studies for three or more academic years after taking a degree/diploma/certificate, are referred to and considered for admission by the Admission Review Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Proctor, the Dean and the Head of the Department concerned. To substantiate this point, the respondent has produced as Annexure R-1 a copy of the general rules relating to admission contained in the prospectus for 1987-88. Rule 16 therein says that the case of a candidate seeking admission to the courses other than Ph.D., B.E. and other part time evening courses, who gave up his studies for three or more academic years after taking a degree/diploma/certificate will be considered for admission by the Admission Review Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Proctor, the Dean and the Head of the Department concerned, The respondent has also pointed out an identical provision in rule 12 of the rules relating to admission contained in the prospectus for 1997-98 in respect of the faculties of Humanities and Languages, Law, Social Science and Natural Sciences. A copy of the said rules is Annexure R-2 to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that by sheer oversight a similar provision was not expressly incorporated in the prospectus in respect of the Faculty of Education for the academic year 1997-98. When this omission was noticed Annexure R- 3 notice dated 17-9-1997 was put up on the Admission Notice Board of the Faculty of Education for information of all candidates. As per Annexure R-3 notice dated 17-9-1997 all candidates applying to different courses of the Departments of Fine Arts and Teacher Training were informed that in accordance with the provision laid down in the Prospectus 1997-98 of the Faculty of Education under para 13.4(e), they would be required to submit the proof of engagement during the intervening period after having acquired the last degree/diploma and that in case the intervening period was of three or more academic years, their cases would be considered for admission by the Admission Review Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Proctor, the Dean and the Head of the Department concerned. It was also stated in the said notice that the cases sent for consideration to the Admission Review Committee would be duly indicated in the list of selected candidates and admission formalities of such candidates would be processed only subject to the clearance from the Admission Review Committee. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that all candidates who submitted completed application forms are permitted to appear in the written test without any pre-test scrutiny. The candidates are asked to produce relevant certificates only at the subsequent stage of interview when the scrutiny takes place. The mere fact of candidates being allowed to appear in the test or being called for interview does not mean that they are eligible for admission. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that all cases of gap of three or more years and cases of over age were referred to the Admission Review Committee. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that all cases of gap of three or more years and cases of over age were referred to the Admission Review Committee. It is also stated that the petitioner was over-aged by 11 months only and that reference to two years in the merit list was an inadvertent typographical error. It is further stated that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Admission Review Committee along with other cases on 16-10-1997. It is also clarified in the counter affidavit that the rejection of the petitioner's case was due to the gap of 13 years and not due to over age because in the case of women candidates the committee relaxed the age limit by one year. Though it is admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had approached Prof. M.A. Siddiqui for guidance, it is categorically denied that he gave any assurance to the petitioner as alleged in the writ petition. The respondent has admitted the receipt of the notice dated 20-10-1997 sent by the petitioner but has denied the receipt of any notice dated 10-11-1997. According to the counter affidavit, admission in B.ED.. course was closed on 31-10-1997 and all seats have been filled up. The first phase of training was already over and the second phase of training would be over on 27-11-1997 and the third phase of teaching would commence from 3-12-1997.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit reiterating that the prospectus 1997-98 issued by the Faculty of Education did not contain a stipulation that any gap between the last course attended and the present course would be a disqualification for admission or would entail review of the applicant's case by any Committee. It is contended that the prospectus of the year 1987-88 has no relevance in the year 1997- 98. It is also contended that the prospectus issued by the other faculties for the year 1997-98 have no relevance for admission to courses offered by the Faculty of Education. According to the petitioner, only the general rules relating to admission contained in the prospectus issued by the Faculty of Education for the Year 1997-98 are relevant in this case. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the general rules relating to admission contained in the prospectus of the Faculty of Education for the year 1997-98. It is also stated in the rejoinder affidavit that even in the prospectus of the faculty of Education for the year 1996-97 there was no stipulation that any gap between two courses would be a disqualification. To substantiate this statement the petitioner has produced a copy of the general rules relating to admission contained in the prospectus for 1996-97 [Annexure E to the rejoinder affidavit]. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the notice dated 17.9.1997 (Annexure R-3 to the counter affidavit) was not brought to the notice of the petitioner at any point of time during his several visits to the office of the respondent. It is also contended that there is no basis or justification for the arbitrary and illegal condition providing for reference of the cases to an Admission Review Committee. There are no guidelines or rules laying down that admission of candidates having an intervening period of more than three years would be considered by the Admission Review Committee. No criteria have been laid down for granting or denying admission to candidates having an intervening period of more than three years. It is further contended that an upper age limit has been prescribed for admission to various courses. In the case of Bachelor of Fine Art and Art Education, Bachelor of Fine Art in Applied Art and Bachelor of Art in Painting, the upper age limit is 23 years while the upper age limit in the case of Bachelor of Education is 33 years. The B.ED.. course has been placed on a different footing and hence the rules, terms and conditions and other criteria in the case of other courses are not applicable to B.ED.. course. According to the petitioner, it is hard to believe that a candidate would be studying upto the age of 33 years without any intervening period or gap. The prescription of an upper age limit of 33 years suggests that the respondent expects candidates to join the B.Ed. course after having settled down in life so that they can pursue higher studies at a later point of time in life. The said object of prescribing on upper age limit of 30 years is sought to be restricted and taken away by denying admission on the ground that a candidate has an intervening period of three or more years . It is also pointed out in the rejoinder affidavit that in the minutes of the meeting of the Admission Review Committee held on 16.10.1997 (Annexure R- 5 to the counter affidavit) respondent has not disclosed any reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner. This, according to the petitioner, suggests that the respondent acted in an arbitrary manner and without any guidelines.