LexKURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANR. versus JYOTI SHARMA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANR.
v.
JYOTI SHARMA AND ORS. ETC.
SEPTEMBER 18, 1998
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)
Kuntkslzetra University Act, 1986 :
S. 11 ( 5 )-{Jniversity-Admissions-Handbook prescribing admission
procedure-Entrance test-Successful candidates to present themselves pe1~
sonally be/ ore compete/It authority-Admissions closed-Seats falling vacant
due to some students leavi11g-Vice Cha11cellor issuing notifications c.alli11g
A
B
c
the candidates who could not deposit fee earlier-Admission granted to two
candidates and de11ied to the third stude11t who had presented herself per-
s011ally be/ ore the authority co11cemed-Her writ petitio11 allowed by High
Cowt-Held, High Cowt was right i11 holding that Vice-Cha11cellor could 11ot D
have issued the notifications-However, si11ce all the three students have bee11
accommodated, they would continue their studies.
In Kurukshetra University, after closure of admissions to M.Sc
(Zoology) for the academic session 1997-1998, four students left the course
giving rise to four vacancies in the course. The hand book prescribed the
admission procedure and eligibility conditions. It prescribed the schedule
of dates for entrance test and admissions. The dates of displaying the first
list, the second list, the third list and the fourth list were given as 15.7.1997,
18.7.1997, 22.7.1997 and 24.7.1997. Thereafter the admissions were closed.
E
F
The hand book did not lay down any procedure to be followed to till
the seats falling vacant after closure of admissions. The Vice-Chancellor
purporting to exercise his powers under S. 11(5) of the Kurukshetra
University Act, 1986 issued Notification dated 22.8.1997 for tilling up the
vacant seats and called upon those candidates who had been called earlier
but had not deposited the fee. Out of those candidates only two appeared. G
Two more students who had not been called earlier, appeared. Two seats
were tilled in the order of merit. For the remaining two seats, following
directions of the Vice-Chancellor issued on 9.9.1997"more· students in
order of merit were called. This time out of the three claimants, namely,
'M', 'S' and 'JS', the first two, namely, 'M' and 'S' were granted admission, H
647
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A and 'JS' being lower in the order of merit, though appeared personally,
was not granted admission.
B
'JS' filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was of the view that
various provisions as contained in the Hand book showed that the can-
didates whose names appeared in the merit list could be considered for
admission provided they presented themselves on the scheduled dates and
time in the ,department concerned, and since 'M' and 'S' did not present
themselves before the competent authority between July 15, and July 24,
1997, they had lost their right to be considered for admission and it was
the bounden duty of the authority concerned to have granted admissions
C in the order of merit to the candidates who had made themselves available
on the last date of admission. It held that the admission granted to 'M'
and 'S' were contrary to the procedure prescribed. It cancelled their
admissions and allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the University as well
as 'M' and 'S' filed the present appeals.
D
During the pendency of the appeal, it was pointed out that three seats
were vacant in M.Sc (Zoology) and all the three candidates viz. appellant
'M', 'S' and respondent 'JS' could be permitted to attend the classes.
Accordingly, they have been continuing their studies in the subject.
E
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The High Court committed no error in holding that the
Vice-Chancellor could not have, in the established facts of the case, exer-
cised power under Section 11(5) of the Kurukshetra University Act, 1986
F by issuing Notification dated August 22, 1997 and September 9, 1997. As
regards the objection of the University that there could be more
meritorious student than the respondent 'JS', suftice it to say that no one
has come forward to stake his claim for admission and since one academic
year has already been over it loses its relevance. [657-G-H; 658-A]
G
2. Since three seats in M.Sc. (Zoology) for the academic year 1997-98
were vacant at the time when these matters came up before the Court and
all the three students, namely 'M', 'S', and 'JS' have been accommodated,
the order of the High CourtExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.