JAIPAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Mr Pareek learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner secured First Division in Intermediate Examination in Central Board of Higher Education He produced the marksheet and the Certificate marked as annexures 1 and 2 Respondent No. 2 after taking into consideration the certificate and the mark-sheet admitted the petitioner in Second Year T. D. C. at the initial stage of admission in the Session 1989-90 Present petitioner was admitted in Maharaja College, Jaipur and in fact completed his studies. Notice Annexure-4 was issued to the present petitioner on 14th March 1990, that the Board from which the present petitioner has passed the examination is not recognised Board as such his admission has been cancelled in pursuance of the instructions issued by the authorities of the University, vide letter dated, 1-3-90. At the time of issuance of the order dated 1-3-90, petitioner was not heard.

(2.) ON behalf of respondent No. 2, it was admitted that the petitioner applied and he was given provisional admission in the second year TDC in Maharaja College, Jaipur, for the academic year, 1989-90. It was also submitted that the petitioner has passed his examination from Central Board of Higher Education, which is not recognised by the University of Rajasthan. It was further submitted that the Central Board of Secondary Education is a highly rated and popular Board which has been recognised by the University of Rajasthan. It was further submitted that inadvertantly the authorities overlooked the face that the petitioner passed the examination from Central Board of Higher Education and not from Central Board of Secondary Education. This similarity in the nomenclature of the two Boards has led to the commission of the mistake. May it be so. The doctrine of accountability is there. A student if not admitted can seek admission at any other place where the said degree or qualification is recognised. Even if there is no other institution he can join the service and he can further attempt to get any job or any qualification permissible under the Rules from any institution of the country. A student cannot be asked to suffer because of the mistake or inadvertence of the authorities concerned. The student has studied for the whole year and now at the fag end to say that the degree is not recognised as such, the admission which was given in August 1989 is cancelled in the month of March 1990. This type of order itself is bad. There is nothing like provisional admission. ONce the admission is given it creates a right in favour of the student and it is the duty of the person giving admission to scrutinise all the papers submitted by the petitioner at the time of giving admission. It is not the case of any of the parties that the petitioner has misrepresented orhas concealed any fact. Petitioner in his application has also named that ha has passed the examination from Central Board of Higher Education. He has also submitted the marksheet and the migration certificate. If the authorities giving admission commit any mistake then naturally the authority must also suffer the burns of the losses incurred by the student by giving damages. The doctrine of accountability should be invoked. If this doctrine is not invoked, every time the State Government or its officers of the Corporations will come and say that it is a mistake and now it will be rectified. They will not feel the burns of the persons who have sustained burns on account of their inadvertence. It is easy to say that inadvertantly we gave admission, but it is very difficult to say as to who has committed the mistake. Even in the reply filed by the non-petitioners it has not been mentioned as to who has committed the mistake and what action has been taken against the person who has committed the mistake. It is true that once the institution is not recognised the University cannot be compelled to allow him to appear in the examination. The University was moved for admission in the month of February and they pointed out in the month of March 1990 that the student is not eligible for appearing in the examination. To allow admission and to allow to appear in the examination are two different things. The Institution allows admission to the student and the University allows to appear in the examination. This is a mistake of non-petitioner No. 2. A suggestion was made to the counsel of the University that if the petitioner is allowed to appear in the examination as a concession on account of the mistake committed by the respondents then the Court may overlook, to pass an order for granting damages. However, it was submitted that the order can be passed judicially, but, no submission can be made or no concession can be extended in this way that the petitioner who has studied the whole year will be allowed to appear in the examination. Court is also bound by law and it should not issue instructions that the petitioner should be allowed to appear in the examination as the student has not passed the examination from a recognised institution. However, the student has studied for one year, so there is an accountability of the institution who has given the admission to the student and he should not be thrown out without getting damages for the loss he has sustained. He has lost one valuable year of his career. It is directed that in case the petitioner is not allowed to appear in the examination, the respondent No. 2 shall pay Rs. 25,000/- as damages to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 will be at liberty to fix up the liability and to get the amount recovered from the persons who have committed the default. However, the petitioner cannot be asked to point out as to who has committed the mistake and respondent No. 2 will have to pay damages to the petitioner.