VARUN SEHGAL Vs. H.P.UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions, which raise common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties without formal admission and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of these two petitions as averred in the petitions are that Respondent No. 3 is running three degree courses, i.e.. Computer Science & Engineering, Electronics & Communication Engineering and Electrical Engineering with the approval of AICTE and has been accorded affiliation by Respondent No. 1. On issue of prospectus by the State for admission to 1st year of the Engineering Degree Courses for the year 2002-2003, the Petitioners applied for admission and were admitted in the B-Tech, course by Respondent No. 3 in August, 2002. The decree course was of four years' duration having 3 semesters and examinations were to be held at the end of each academic semester in the months of November - December and May - June on such dates as might be notified by the Controller of Examinations of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 did not possess adequate infrastructure facilities and proper education was not provided to the Petitioners but they pursued their studies diligently and appeared in the 1st Semester Examination held in December, 2002 in all the papers and were permitted to join classes of 2nd Semester in January, 2003 for which the prescribed fee etc. amounting to Rs. 65,000/ - per semester in the case of payment seats and Rs. 30,000/- per semester in the case of free seats were charged. When the result of 1st Semester was declared in April, 2003, the Petitioners were found to have failed in more than three subjects. Respondent No. 1 issued a notice in May, 2003 that examination forms of 2nd Semester of those students who had failed in the 1st Semester would not be accepted. However on a representation of the students and orders passed by this Court in a Writ Petition, the students including the Petitioners were permitted to appear in the examination of 2nd Semester. In August, 2003, the Petitioners were granted admission to 3rd Semester and the requisite admission fee etc. was accepted from them and they were permitted to attend the classes of 3rd Semester. Their admission forms for 3rd Semester examination were also accepted by the Respondents and roll numbers for the examination of 3rd Semester and supplementary examinations of 1st and 2nd Semesters were also issued to them to enable them to sit in such examinations to be held in December-January, 2004. However, on 23.12.2003, the Petitioners were informed by the authorities of Respondent No. 3 that as per the telephonic message from Respondent No. 1 only those students who had passed the 1st Semester would be permitted to sit in the examination of 2nd and 3rd Semesters and the students who had not passed the 2nd Semester would not be permitted to sit in the examination of the 3rd Semester. Despite requests by the Petitioners, such orders/directions were not conveyed to them in writing nor were notified on the notice board. Pursuant to the protest by the Petitioners Respondent No. 3 agreed to permit the Petitioners and the similarly situate students to sit in the examinations for which they had been issued the roll numbers subject to the undertaking that the Petitioners would not lodge any claim/protest or press for declaration of their result in case Respondent No. 1 declined the permission for such examinations. Having no other alternative, the Petitioners gave such undertaking on 24.12.2003 because the examination for the 3rd Semester was to commence from 29.12.2003. The Petitioners also came to know that the Respondent No. 1 had issued the instructions on 8.5.2003 that a carry over system would not be applicable and fresh admissions will be governed by University Ordinances and such instructions were made applicable even to the admissions having been made in August 2002 whereas in December, 2003 Respondent No. 2 allowed an additional special change to the students of 1st and 4th Semesters of Respondent No. 3. Such powers of giving special chances to the students having become ineligible are being exercised by Respondent No. 2 by waiving the disqualification and by permitting the students to sit in the examination. It is also case of the Petitioners that neither at the time of admission to the classes of the next semesters and at the time of appearing in the Semester Examinations nor at the time of receiving the admission fee for 3rd Semester and permitting the Petitioners to attend the classes of 3rd Semester they were informed that they would not be permitted to sit in the 2nd Semester Examination and so on in case they did not clear the 1st Semester Examination. The Petitioners have the legitimate expectations that the procedure and practice as followed in the past would continue to be followed and could not be changed unless a prior notice was given to them. Their admission fees to 2nd and 3rd Semesters were accepted, even examination fees were accepted and roll numbers were issued therefore, the Respondents now could not deny the opportunity to the Petitioners to appear in the examinations and declare their results because if there was any objection those stood waived off because of the acceptance of fees, issue of roll numbers etc. Therefore, the denial of the permission to the Petitioners to sit in the 3rd Semester Examination as well as supplementary examinations is unfair and unreasonable and the undertaking taken from the Petitioners by Respondent No. 3 is illegal.

(3.) Against the aforesaid background, the petitions have claimed the following reliefs in these petitions: