MALABIKA DHAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three writ petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Art. 226 for quashing the impugned orders bearing Ref. No. SSA / 95 / 10 / (41) dated the l 5/03/1995 issued in respect of each of the three petitioners by the respondent No. 6, the Head of the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, University of North Bengal by which the petitioners who were already admitted to the M.A. Part-I Class of the said University, have been informed that their admission to the said class has been cancelled by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 13/03/1995 in view of the gross violation of the prescribed rules for such admission. The petitioners were accordingly instructed therein not to attend the classes with immediate effect. On receipt of the same the petitioner No. 1 also wrote to the respondent No. 7 on the Very next day, that is, on 16/03/1995 that she did not violate any rule and that she got herself admitted in accordance with the official procedure. In the said letter which is Annexure--E to the writ petition the petitioner also wondered as to what was her fault for which the Executive Council could take a decision to terminate her academic career. She also requested the respondent No. 6 to let her know the specific rules that she had violated and further requested that if no such rules had been violated by her then she might be informed as to why she should be punished after almost a month of her admission for no fault committed by her.

(2.) The petitioners contend that they passed B. A, examination with honours (10 + 2 + 3 system) from the North Bengal University and pursuant to an advertisement issued by the said university in the month of September 1994 in the daily newspaper 'Uttarbanga Sambad' inviting applications for admission to different post-graduate courses in the academic session 1993-94, the petitioners separately applied in the prescribed forms for admission to the M. A. Part I course in Sociology and Social Anthropology within the time stipulated in the said advertisement. It is also the petitioners' case that there were 35 seats for the said subject and the merit list comprising of 70 candidates was prepared by the University and the petitioners were selected and their names were also included in the merit list. According to the petitioners' case, the first list of 35 candidates was published in November 1994 wherein the petitioners names did not appear. But since all the candidates did not respond to the offer of admission to the M. A. Part-I class in Sociology and Social Anthropology, some of the 35 seats remained vacant and admission to the said subject was being made in accordance with the merit list. It is the contention of the petitioners that the last date for admission to the said subject which was originally fixed on 15-2-95 was subsequently extended to 23-2-95 and on 14-2-95 three seats still remained vacant and on approach by the petitioners to the Vice-Chancellor of the University they were admitted to the M. A. Part-I class for the session 1993-94 in the said subject. Annexure-A to the writ petition is a written authorisation dated 22-2-95 issued by the Secretary to the Faculty Council for Postgraduate Studies in Arts, Commerce and Law, University of North Bengal, to the effect that the writ petitioner No.3 may be provisionally admitted to the M. A. Part-I class for the session 1993-94 in the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology. It is the case of the petitioners that similar authorisations were issued also in respect of the other two petitioners and the petitioners were accordingly admitted to the M. A. Part-I class and they joined the class on 22/24-2-95 and the Library Cards were also issued to them and they were regularly attending their classes after such admission. It is however the petitioners' case that it is the usual practice that the initial admission is made only provisionally in all cases. The petitioners were also given accommodation in the hostel after their admission on payment of hostel charges. It is the contention of the petitioners that the cancellation of their admission when they have not violated any rules or norms, and without giving them any opportunity of hearing in the matter, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play and accordingly they pray for quashing the impugned actions on the part of the University authorities whereby the petitioners' admissions have been cancelled and they have been asked not to further attend the classes.

(3.) The University and its authorities, namely, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar contest the writ petition. An Affidavit-in-opposition also has been affirmed on their behalf by one Shri Samar Chakraborty who is a Junior Assistant of the said university posted at Calcutta Compus office. It is inter alia stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that in terms of the decision of the Faculty Council of the University dated the 22/03/1994 the last date for admission to M. A. Part-I class in Sociology and Social Anthropology for the session 1993-94 was fixed on 15/02/1995 and that the petitioners never approached the Vice-Chancellor for admission to M. A. Part-I class in the said subject and in any event though the last date of admission was fixed on 15/02/1995 in terms of the decision of the Faculty Council dated the 22/03/1994 yet the petitioners got themselves admitted to M. A. Part-I class in the said subject on the 22/ 23/02/1995 after the last date of admission as fixed by the Faculty Council by its resolution dated the 22/03/1994. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that it was specifically resolved in the meeting of the Faculty Council held on 22/03/1994 that in the M. A. Part-I class of Sociology and Social Anthropology the intake capacity would be 35 and the admission should be made in order of marks obtained by the candidates at (Honours) Graduate level and that preference would be given to the candidates who graduated with honours in 1993 and the order of preference would depend upon the year of graduation, like 1993 first, then 1992 and so on, inasmuch as a candidate graduated in 1992 though having better marks than a candidate graduated in 1993 would not be entitled to get himself admitted in M. A. class prior to 1993 candidates. The resolution of the Faculty Council dated the 23/03/1994 on which the respondents rely has been marked as annexured-K to the affidavit-in-opposition. It is stated in affidavit-in-opposition that it appears from the records that the petitioners were not only wrongly and illegally admitted in the first year M. A. class of 1993-94 session in the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology after the last date of admission, that is the 15th February, as fixed by the Faculty Council in the meeting held on 22/03/1994 but they were so admitted by superseding several candidates who obtained much higher marks than the petitioners. It is stated in paragraph 3 in the affidavit-in-opposition that it appears from the record that the petitioner No. 1 Sm. Malabika Dhar obtained 357 marks and the petitioner No. 3 Aloka Kumar Roy obtained 362 (358) marks and the petitioner No. 3 Sm. Sumita Dasgupta being a graduate of 1992 obtained 368 marks but in spite of that they were wrongly and erroneously admitted to M. A. Part-I class by superseding several candidates who secured much higher marks. It is also stated in the said paragraph of the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner No, 1 superseded 14 candidates who secured much higher marks than her and the petitioner No. 3 superseded 12 candidates who obtained higher marks and the petitioner No. 2 who was a 1992 honours graduate and who as per rules cannot be admitted before the candidates graduated in 1993 superseded 70 candidates. It is stated in the same paragraph that the last candidate admitted in the general category secured 364 marks. Annexure-L to the affidavit-in-opposition is stated to be the list prepared by the University for admission to M. A. Part-I in the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology for the session 1993-94 showing therein the marks secured by the respective candidates at the graduation level (honours). In paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is asserted that the admission of the petitioners was made wrongly and erroneously and in contravention of all rules, norms and procedures, particularly by superseding the candidates who obtained much higher marks than the petitioners. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated that in any event it was a gross mistake on the part of the concerned office of the university to admit the petitioners and to grant hostel accommodation, etc. It is also pointed out that such admission was given on provisional basis which can be cancelled by the competent authority on authentic ground. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated inter alia that the Executive Council of the University considered the matter of the irregularities of admission of the petitioners and after being satisfied about the serious irregularities and illegalities committed while admitting the petitioners and after considering the facts and circumstances resolved in the meeting dated the 13/03/1995 that the admission of the petitioners be cancelled forthwith and their names be struck off from the rolls.