CHAND ALI Vs. MAHESH SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 17 matters can conveniently be disposed of by a single order although there is some difference between the seven cases and the rest of them so far as the date of admission is concerned and the condition on which the later admissions were made but all the same the principal question involved in alt of them is the same.

(2.) It appears that some admissions were made to the vacation course of B.Ed. in the Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan, non-petitioner No. 1 in all these cases on 12-5-86 and a waiting list of the remaining candidates was also published along with a list of students who has already been admitted. Originally the number of seats was 180 and later on in July, 1986, 60 more seats were added and on that account some more. persons were admitted later on. The admissions of those persons were challenged by seven of the petitioners in these writ petitions on the ground that the later admissions had been camouflaged with an intention to give admissions to the persons less meritorious than the petitioners Choon Singh, Kesh Ram, Ram Singh. Hem Raj, Mithu Singh, Hanuman Prasad and Jai Ram. Various grounds of challenge were taken in the writ petitions, however, it appears that pending those writ petitions, an agreement was arrived at between the non-petitioner No. 1 and those writ petitioners, according to which admission was sought to be granted to those petitioners to the B.Ed. Class vacation course of 1986-87 on the condition that the petitioners would not raise any objection with regard to the course already completed. It was further stipulated that the petitioners would deposit the fee between 20-8-86 and 22-8-86. This agreement was arrived at on 14-8-86 and in pursuance thereof the petitioners were granted admission on 20-8-86. The writ petitions were withdrawn.

(3.) Thereafter the other petitioners in these writ petitions also moved writ petitions challenging the earlier admissions and praying that admissions may be granted to them also. Those writ petitions were, dismissed on the ground of delay but on appeals again a settlement appears to have been arrived at between the parties pending the special appeals and in pursuance thereof Director of non-petitioner No. 1 gave an assurance to the effect that these appellants will be given admissions to the aforesaid course but the management shall not be responsible for the theory and practice of teaching so far conducted and consequences following therefrom. The students shall have to deposit fees by 6th of October, 86 and they shall not claim refund of the fees. On this assurance the Division Bench passed the following order in the special appeals :-