TUSHAR KANTA NAYAK Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY FB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy raised in these cases relates to admission of non-collegiate (private) candidates to the Post-Graduate Examinations conducted by the Utkal University ('the University' for short) in 1993. The petitioners had intended to appear in the said examinations as non-collegiate (private) candidates. When the notification dated 17-10-92 (Annexure 1) was issued by the Controller of Examinations of the University inviting applications from eligible non-collegiate (private) candidates for admission to the examination, a condition was imposed that candidates securing less than 40 per cent marks in the aggregate and the subject (separately) at the degree shall not be eligible for admission to Post-Graduate Private appearance in any faculty. In the notification this stipulation was stated as an important provision for determining eligibility of the candidates. The petitioners do not fulfil this eligibility qualification. The petitioners, therefore, filed these writ applications seeking quashing of the said eligibility qualification in the notification, Annexure 1. They contend, inter alia, that no such qualification had been prescribed in previous years; that there is no necessity and no sound reason for restricting the admission of non-collegiate (private) candidates to the examination; that there is no rational basis for the eligibility qualification laid down, particularly that a candidate has to secure at the degree stage 40 per cent in aggregate in addition to securing 40 per cent in the concerned subject, in which he intends to appear in the P. G. Examination. The stipulation regarding eligibility qualifications was questioned in O.J.C. Nos. 365, 964 and 1263 of 1993 which were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment rendered on 26-4-1993. Therein this Court declined to quash the eligibility qualifications prescribed, holding inter alia, that the University has every right to stipulate conditions regulating admission to various examinations and it could not be said that there is no good and valid reason for fixing the impugned eligibility criteria nor can it be said that the stipulation of 40 per cent marks in the aggregate and the subject separately is unreasonable. When the present cases were listed before another Bench it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the decision in the aforementioned decided cases merits reconsideration, because the cases referred to in paragraph 6 of the judgment relate not to admission to examination but to admission to courses. On consideration of the said submissions, the Division Bench felt that it is a fit case which merits to be decided by a larger Bench. In pursuance of the said order the cases were listed before this Full Bench.

(2.) The factual backdrop of the case over which there is no dispute may be stated thus: No private educational institution in the State is recognised or affiliated for imparting education at the post-graduate level. Some such institutions hold coaching classes for preparing students for post-graduate examinations and such students appear in the examination as non-collegiate (private) candidates. In the recent past the number of such candidates has increased manifold and as stated on behalf of the University the number is around 15000 to 20000. Faced with the stupendous task of finding suitable accommodation for all the candidates and keeping in view the necessity for maintaining high standard of academic excellence at the post-graduate level, the authorities of the University felt the necessity for screening the applicants intending to appear as non-collegiate (private) candidates in the Post-Graduate Examination. The Heads of Post-Graduate Teaching Department of the University had resolved that only candidates having 50 per cent or more marks in aggregate or in concerned honours subjects should be eligible for appearing at the M.A. Examination as non-collegiate (private) candidates. Thereafter, the Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 9-4-92 considered the matter and resolved that the criteria prescribed by the State Government for admission to Post-Graduate classes should be fixed for determining the eligibility for non-collegiate (private) candidates for the P. G. Examination 1993. Since the examination was fast approaching, the Vice-Chancellor of the University in purported exercise of power vested in him under Section 6(15) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 amended the Examination Regulation introducing the impugned eligibility qualifications. Subsequently the decision was ratified by the Academic Council of the University. Accordingly in the notification dated 17-10-92 issued by the Controller of Examinations (Annexure 1) the impugned eligibility criteria were indicated.

(3.) As noted earlier, the petitioners assail the eligibility qualification as irrational, unnecessary and having no nexus with the purpose to be achieved in the matter. They also contend that though Section 6(15) of the Act vests power in the Vice-Chancellor to pass such order or take such decision in certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions, as specified in the provision, the manner in which such power has been exercised by the authority in the present case does not conform to the statutory requirement and therefore the decision / order is unsustainable. Elucidating the point Sri B. K. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the decision on the face of it is incapable of uniform implementation with regard to the applicants, inasmuch as students who did not have the subject at degree stage are also eligible to appear in the Post-Graduate Examinations as non-collegiate (private) candidates and in that case, as the order shows, the only eligibility criteria is 40 per cent in aggregate at degree stage, whereas in case of student who has studied the subject in question has to secure 40 per cent marks in the subject and in addition, 40 per cent in aggregate. As regards the manner of exercise of power under Section 6(15) of the Act, Sri Patnaik contended that no material has been placed on record to show that the Vice-Chancellor before passing the order had formed an opinion that it was necessary to pass an order in that regard immediately and it was not practicable to convene the meeting of the concerned authority for that purpose before taking a decision and the decision was taken by the Vice-Chancellor. Sri Patnaik strenuously contended that the eligibility qualification in question causes serious hardship to the petitioners and similarly placed students who had made preparations for appearing in the Post-Graduate Examination as non-collegiate (private) candidates with the hope to secure post-graduate degree. Denying them such facility at the threshold according to Sri Patnaik, is uncalled for. According to him the decision which seriously affects reasonable expectation of the students has not been taken with due application of mind to all relevant matters.