WP/22474/2004 of Sameera Ismail, Vs The Secretary for Education, on 27 December 2004

O r d e r:

The petitioner passed B.Com degree with 40% marks from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad. To pursue higher studies, thepetitioner appeared for EDCET-2003, conducted by Osmania University. On beingqualified in EDCET-2003 (Education Common Entrance Test-2003) to takeadmission, she applied for B.Ed. Course admission, and was admitted into B.Ed.Course in respondent No.4-Islamia College of Education. At the time of admission,the petitioner claims to have paid Rs.35,000/- towards capitation fee, andRs.10,800/- towards admission fee. The petitioner states that having been admittedto B.Ed. Course, she even attended classes regularly from June, 2004 for a period ofsix months out of the nine months of the course period.

While so, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4-college directedher not to attend the classes, as respondent No.5-Osmania University rejected heradmission on the ground that she secured less than 45% marks in the qualifyingexam (i.e. graduation) for admission into B.Ed. Course. The petitioner states that atthe time of her admission into B.Ed. Course, the respondents have not taken anyobjection as to the marks, which are less than 45% marks secured by her in thequalifying exam for admission into B.Ed. Course, and inasmuch as knowing fullywell that she got 40% in B.Com., respondent No.4-college had admitted her intoB.Ed. Course and permitted her to attend the classes for six months, the petitionerstates that she legitimately expected that her admission into B.Ed. Course is proper,and even if her admission is not in accordance with the Rules, respondent Nos. 4and 5, having permitted the petitioner to attend the classes, are estopped fromrejecting her admission into B.Ed. Course. The petitioner thus prayed that the writpetition be allowed and the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to complete the B.Ed. Course.

complete the B.Ed. Course.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned StandingCounsel for respondent No.5-University.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 4(2) of the A.P. Colleges of Education (Regulation of Admission into B.Ed.Course Through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989 issued by the Government inG.O. Ms. No. 154, Education (Rules), dated 27-4-1989, a pass in the qualifying exam is enough for seeking admission into B.Ed.Course. He submits that inasmuch as the petitioner has passed the qualifying examfor admission into B.Ed. Course, her admission into the said course could not havebeen rejected by respondent No.5-University. Be that as it may, he submits thatinasmuch as respondent No.4-college knowing fully well that the petitioner hadsecured 40% marks in the qualifying exam and is ineligible for admission into B.Ed.Course, yet had admitted the petitioner and permitted her to attend the classes of thesaid course for six months, it is not proper on their part to direct the petitioner not toattend the classes on the ground that respondent No.5-University had rejected heradmission for the reason that she secured less than 45% marks in the qualifyingexam for admission into B.Ed. Course, and that the respondents are estopped fromrejecting the admission. He submits that inasmuch as the petitioner, apart frompaying admission fee, had also paid huge capitation fee, and if after completion ofsix months of the B.Ed. Course, the petitioner’s admission is rejected and she notpermitted to attend the classes, she would be put to irreparable loss. He submittedthat inasmuch as respondent No.4-college had permitted the petitioner to attend thecollege, and in fact, the she had attended the college for six months, the petitionerlegitimately expected that her admission into B.Ed. Course is proper. In support ofhis various contentions, he placed reliance on several judgements of the apex Courtand of the High Courts in Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, TataEngineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner ofCommercial Taxes, Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R.Rudani, Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India,Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University, K.R. Shivadatta v. Govt. MedicalCollege, Pratima Das v. State of Orissa, Manoj Kumar v. Co-ordinator,A.C.M.N.R. Engineering College, Punjab Engineering College v. DharminderKumar Singhal, K. Anand v. Convenor, Engineering Agricultural Medical Common Entrance Test, 1986, Hyderabad, Haruhabder Singh v. SelectionCommittee, K.M.C. Warrangal, and Abhishek Srivastava v. Sate of U.P..

The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5-University on the otherhand submitted that for admission into B.Ed. Course, the student seeking admissionshould have secured 45% marks in the qualifying exam, and inasmuch as thepetitioner has secured only 40% marks in the qualifying exam, her admission madeby respondent No.4-college, was violative of the admission Rules governing theB.Ed. course, and therefore, respondent No.5-University, rejected the admission ofthe petitioner, and no exception can be taken to such action. The A.P. Colleges ofEducation (Regulation of Admission into B.Ed. Course Through Common EntranceTest) Rules, 1989 issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 154, Education(Rules), dated 27-4-1989, are not binding on respondent No.5-University, and thepetitioner has to go by the EDCET-2003 Rules, under which she was admitted, andwhich Rules, prescribe minimum of 45% marks to be secured in the qualifying examfor admission into B.Ed. Course. Inasmuch as respondent No.4-college, knowingfully well that the Rules prescribe minimum of 45% marks in the qualifying exam foradmission into B.Ed. Course, yet had admitted the petitioner, who secured 40%marks in the qualifying marks, it amounts to malpractice on the part of respondentNo.4-college in making the admissions. He further submitted that inasmuch as thevery admission of the petitioner into B.Ed. Course was made by respondent No.4-college in violation of the Rules governing admission into B.Ed. Course, she cannotclaim to have expected legitimately that her admission is legal, for she waspermitted to pursue the course for six months. He, thus, prayed that the writ petitionbe dismissed.

According to EDCET-2003, a candidate seeking admission to B.Ed. Course,has to secure a minimum of 45% marks in the qualifying exam. The petitioner,admittedly, secured 40% marks in the qualifying exam. Though the petitioner wasineligible to be admitted into B.Ed. Course, yet respondent No.4-college, gaveadmission to the petitioner, which is in sheer violation of EDCET-2003. No doubt,the petitioner upon joining the B.Ed. Course, had pursued six months, that by itselfcannot be a ground not to reject her admission, which was made by respondentNo.4-college in violation of EDCET-2003. Respondent No.4-college being affiliatedto respondent No.5-University, while making admissions is bound to follow theEDCET-2003, which govern the admissions into B.Ed. Course. Inasmuch as the petitioner had secured only 40% marks in the qualifying exam, respondent No.4-college, could not have given her admission. Inasmuch as at the time of scrutiny ofthe admissions made by respondent No.4-college, it came to the notice ofrespondent No.5-University that the petitioner’s admission into B.Ed. Course, wasnot in accordance with EDCET-2003, they rejected the admission of the petitioner,and no exception can be taken thereto. The petitioner, by filing writ petition, cannotseek to legalize her admission, which was made by respondent No.4-college inviolation of EDCET-2003. Merely, because the petitioner was permitted to attend theclasses for a period of six months, the petitioner cannot claim estoppel againstrespondent No.5-University to permit her to continue in the B.Ed. Course, and moreso when the admission was made by respondent No.4-college in violation ofEDCET-2003, and likewise, she cannot expect any legitimacy for her continuance,particularly when respondent No.5-University had not made any promise to thepetitioner that even though she secured less than 45% marks in the qualifyingmarks, her admission to B.Ed. Course made by respondent No.4-college, would beregularized. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner insupport of his various contentions, noted above, do not help him in any manner.

In the above view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the action ofrespondent No.5-University in rejecting the admission of the petitioner into B.Ed.Course made by respondent No.4-college in violation of EDCET-2003. Inasmuch asthe respondent No.4-college had admitted the petitioner into B.Ed. Course inviolation of EDCET-2003, knowing fully well that the petitioner is ineligible to beadmitted into B.Ed. Course, for she secured less than 45% marks in the qualifyingexam, and having regard to the statement made by the petitioner that apart frompaying admission fee, she has also paid huge capitation fee to respondent No.4-college, and inasmuch as collection of capitation fee is prohibited under the A.P.Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of CapitationFee) Act, 1983, the petitioner can proceed against respondent No.4-college forrefund of the capitation fee, apart from the other civil and criminal remedies availableto her, in the form of claiming damages for wasting of one precious year and forcheating her by giving admission into B.Ed. Course, knowing fully well that she isineligible to be admitted.

Date: 27[th] December, 2004.

KSR

_________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.

To

1 The Secretary for Education, Govt. of A.P., at Secretariat, Hyderabad.2 The Secretary, State Council for Higher Education, at Saifabad, Hyderabad, A.P.2 The Secretary, State Council for Higher Education, at Saifabad, Hyderabad, A.P.

3 The Director of Education, State Council for Higher Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

4 The Secretary, Islamia College of Education, SRT Colony, Yakutpura Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

5 The Vice Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

6 Two CCs., to Govt. Pleader for Higher Education, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

7 Two CD copies.