ARVIND Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who secured admission in B.Tech with the Kurukshetra University under freedom fighters category had relied on a certificate issued by the SDO describing him to be the grand son of a freedom fighter. He finished his B.Tech and obtained admission for the postgraduate course in 2013 and in the last semester when he was to take the examination, he was directed to be jettisoned from the college on the ground that the certificate on which he had obtained admission in B.Tech and M.Tech has been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. The cancellation was made through an order dated 4.12.2013, referring to the fact that the grand father's name has not been entered in the government freedom fighter list and the certificate issued by the SDO on 18.4.2006 was not valid. The persons at whose complaint the certificate was cancelled was also permitted to be impleaded as a party before this court.

(2.) There is no case made before me that his grand father was a freedom fighter. On the other hand, the contention is that his widowed mother had applied to the Sub Divisional Officer, Jind, stating that his grand father, namely, father-in-law of the applicant/mother was stated to have served as constable in Jat Regiment and she had submitted the discharge book. This was believed by the SDO that he was a freedom fighter. It tuned out later that his employment status did not qualify as a freedom fighter. The degree which is secured and the post-graduate examination which he took after permission from the court in which he seems to have passed the examination is in jeopardy in view of the fact that he was not a person belonging to the freedom fighter category. The petitioner's case is that there was no mis-representation made. She had sought for a certificate enclosing the discharge certificate of her husband as Constable from the Jat Regiment and it was for the State to make a proper verification before issuance of such a certificate. If he had been denied the certificate at that time, nothing would have remained for him to even enter the course under the freedom fighter quota. If the State had not properly scrutinized the documents which was filed and believed it to qualify his grandfather as freedom fighter, it was the State's lapse and he cannot be penalized. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to me to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Iqbal Kaur Versus State of Haryana, 1998 1 SCT 576 that dealt with a case of the student taking admission on the basis of the marks secured by her in the entrance examination, which was less than 45%. After the students had passed two semesters and when the student was in the third semester, she was found to be ineligible having not secured 45% marks. The Division Bench held that there was no mis-representation made and if a wrong admission has been given by the College, the student cannot be penalized. I will not find any congruity in legal position as obtaining to the case from the facts of the case illustrated above. The Division Bench was considering a case of a mistake committed by the College in taking the eligibility as having been fulfilled and in such a situation an estoppel clearly operated against them to disown their own mistake and turn the student away. There is no mistake which the college/university has made. The mistake is by the State in issuing a certificate which the student did not deserve.

(3.) I thought for a while whether this should in any way come to such a situation that a person who has completed his full B.Tech course and who have arrived at the final M.Tech to lose out all his qualifications, in view of the fact that he was not the grandson of a freedom fighter. If there was a student who bid for entry as a member of the freedom fighter family and who had lost out the competition to the petitioner by the certificate and that student had challenged the admission granted, it would be probably justifiable circumstance to turn the student away who had secured admission on wrong basis. It is not as if the person was not competent to gain entry into the college and that he had been disqualified by lack of any academic qualification. If his qualification was going to be withdrawn only by how the State had been in error in assuming the wrong status of a constable in a regiment as freedom fighter, then the punishment of such laches must be more on the officer who had issued a certificate wrongly which could have prevented an entry of a more deserving general category candidate. It is too late in the day to set the clock back and dismiss a student who had completed the course literally at the time when the wrong certificate was sought to be used against him. The loss which might occasion to the student is so gross that I will extend the hand of equity and condone the mistake what has crept in. I would not fault a mother of a student when he was still a minor who was anxious to get admission in a respectable college in a good course. The punishment cannot be denied to the petitioner of what he has completed. In a situation relating to a wrong caste certificate, it could have been generated by a false information. The punishment in such a case could be as severe as to deny the benefit of degree which he has earned but the affirmation of a particular employment status of the grand father was in this case not from personal knowledge. It could have been hearsay only. The persons who are bound to apply appropriate vigil and issue certificates could not have erred. If there was such an error, it cannot be placed at the door step of the petitioner. I make no modification about the certificate or the eligibility, but I will not hold it out against the petitioner to disqualify him. The permission granted by this court to take the examination shall culminate in the issuance of degree certificate if he had qualified in the examination. The impugned order disqualifying the admission and denying him the degree is quashed.