ASHOK CHAND SINGHVI versus UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 18-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ASHOK CHAND SINGHVI 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR & ORS. 
JANUARY 18, 1989 
[MURARI MOHON DUIT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Professional Colleges-Admission to Engineering Colleges-
B. E. degree course-Admission to--Candidate-Diploma holder-
Administrator/Instructor in engineering-Conceals nothing from uni-
versity-Granted admission by authorities-Later admission cancelled 
on account of mistake committed by the authorities-Held candidate 
cannot be made to suffer for mistake of authorities-Statutes, rules and 
regulations of University-To be clear and unambiguous. 
The appellant was a diploma holder and was serving as an 
D 
Administrator/Instructor since 1976 in an Engineering College. In May 
1987 he submitted an application to the University for study leave for 
three years to enable him to prosecute his studies in the B.E. Engineer-
ing Degree Course. The Study Leave Committee recommended the case 
on August 3, 1987 and the Syndicate of the University accepted the 
recommendation on August 14, 1987 and the appellant was granted 
study leave for a period of 3 years with full pay. This order was com-
E 
municated to the appellant on October 29, 1987. The appellant submit-
ted an application on November 14, 1987 for admission on the B.E. 
Degree Course. This application was made after the last date for admis-
sion in the general seats bad expired. The Officer-in-Charge, Admis-
sions raised certain objections to tbe effect that the appellant submitted 
F 
G 
the application after expiry of the last date and that he had obtained less 
than 60% marks in the Diploma Examination passed by him. The Dean 
considered the objections and recommended the case of the appellant 
for admission to the Vice-Chancellor. Thereafter the order for admis-
sion of the appellant was issued by the Dean, the appellant deposited the 
fees and joined classes from January 16, 1988. 
On February 18, 1988 the appellant was communicated an order 
dated January 20, 1988 of the Dean directing that his admission was put 
in abeyance until further orders. 
The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of withdrawal of his 
H admission, before the High Court unsuccessfully. 
230 
" 
+ 
-
. ..l-' 
-
A.C. SINGHVI v. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR 
231 
In the appeal to this Court, the objections that were raised to the 
admission of the appellant were that: (I) he had not secured 60% of 
marks which was the minimum requirement for admission, and (2) that 
he should not have been admitted after the last date. The admission it 
was submitted was illegal. 
Allowing the Appeal, the Court, 
HELD: !. The appellant had secured more than 60% of marks in 
the aggregate in the Diploma Examination and was not disqualified for 
admission in that regard. [23SB I 
2. When the appellant made the application beyond the last date, 
his application should not have been entertained. But the application 
was entertained presumably on the basis of the resolution of the Syndi· 
cate dated December 13, 1970. The appellant also brought to the notice 
of the Dean the said resolution and also the implementation of the same 
by admitting seven teacher-candidates. [236E-F] 
3. Although the admission to the B.E. degree course is governed 
by statutes of the University and admission rules, the Syndicate's resol-
ution dated December 13, 1970 had also been kept alive. Neither the 
;i. 
Dean, nor the Vice-Chancellor was aware of the true position, viz 
whether the resolution had become infructuous in view of the statutes 
and admission rules. The University should have revoked the said 
resolution to obviate any ambiguity in the matter of admission or in· 
eluded the same in the statutes as part of the admission rules. [236C-E] 
4. It is the duty of the University to see that its statutes, rules and 
resolutions are clear and unambiguous and do not mislead bona fide 
candidates. [236D I 
S. When after considering all facts and circumstances and alsef 
the objections by the office to the admission of a candidate, the Vice-
Chancellor directs the admission of such a candidate such admission 
could not he said to have been made through mistake. [236G] 
6. Assuming that the appellant was admitted through mistake, 
the appellant not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain the order with· 
holding the admission of the appellant. [?.36H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 183 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
of 1989. 
H 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.