w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION, MYSORE VERSUS UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE


Company & Directors' Information:- MYSORE EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80200KA2017PTC100396

    W.P. 6307 Of 1987

    Decided On, 07 August 1987

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALIDHARA RAO

    For the Appearing Parties: H.N. Narayan, Shivaraj Patil, V.C. Brahmaiayappa, Advocates.



Judgment Text

MURLIDHER RAO, J.


(1) IN these petitions, writ petition Nos. 6307, 5528, and 6306 of 1987 are filed by the Institutions, which are running the b. Ed. Colleges at Mysore, Hassan and harihar respectively. Writ petition Nos 5529 , 5849, 6303 to 6305, 6406 to 6410 of 1987 are filed by students, who are ineligible for admission to B. Ed. course either because they did not have the required percentage of marks in their degree examination or because they did not pass the degree examination with one of the subjects enumerated in the Note to regulation-2 of the Revised Regulations for B. Ed. course for the year 1986-76. The petitioner in W. P. . No. 6315/1987- K.C. Ramakrishna had filed writ petition no. 2128/1987 which was dismissed on 13-2-1987. He has secured 44. 8 per cent in the graduation. This fact is suppressed by the petitioner.


(2) THE High Court was closed for summer Vacation from Monday the. 20th April 1987 to Sunday the 24th of May 1987 both days inclusive ).


(3) WRIT petition No. 6307/1987 was filed on 27th April 1987. i.e., during vacation. Writ petition Nos. 6303 to 6305/ 1987, 6315/87, 6306, 6406 to 6410 of 1987 were filed on 27th of April 1987 and interim orders were issued on the same day permitting the petitioners therein to appear for the B. Ed. examination subject to the condition that the results are withheld.


(4) WRIT Petition Nos. 5528 and 5529/1987 were filed on 13-4-1987. They had been posted for preliminary hearing on 15-4-1987, which were adjourned to 16-4-1987. The petitioners, moved the Court on 23rd April 1987 and secured the interim order enabling them to appear for the examination.


(5) WRIT petition No. 5849/1987 was filed on 20th April, 1987 and interim order was issued on 21st April 1987.


(6) BEFORE going to the factual position in these cases, it is necessary to mention that writ petition Nos. 2070 to 2116 of 1987 were filed by the Students of College of Education run by the peoples Education Society, Mandya. The university of Mysore was the respondent. Those writ petitions were dismissed on 13-2-1987 following the judgment of the supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another (AIR 1986 SC 1448 ). The students therein had secured less than 45% of the aggregate marks in the degree examination. Writ appeals 563 to 609 of 1987 filed against this judgment were dismissed on 10th june 1987.


(7) SIMILARLY, writ petitions Nos. 2117 to 2185 of 1987 were filed by the students of B.Ed. College of Education established by the Adichunchanagiri education Trust, Hassan. The Trust was the first petitioner and the other petitioners were its students. In those cases, the court rendered similar judgment following the above Supreme Court judgment and dismissed the petitions on 13-2-1987. Sri K. C. Ramakrishna v. Petitioner in writ petition No 6315/1987 was a petitioner in these batch of cases in Writ petition No. 2128/1987. Writ appeals 672 to 740 of 1987 filed against this judgment were also dismissed on 10-6-1987.


(8) 'writ petitions NPA. 14924 to 14933 of 1986 were filed by the students of Sharada Vilas B. Ed, College of Mysore. Their grievance was that their admission to the B. Ed. course was cancelled as they did not possess the minimum marks in the qualifying examination and secondly, three of the petitioners had passed b. Com. , degree examination with commercial Geography as a subject in commerce degree, the Court dismissed those petitions with the following observation :"error committed by Principal in admitting petitioners, who are in-eligible will not confer any indefeasible right to contend that they must be continued once they are admitted without there being any scope for rectification". This judgment was delivered on 9th September 1986.


(9) THE University has framed regulations. Regulation No. 2 deals with the courses of study and a note to that regulation reads thus :"note : For specialisation each candidate shall choose TWO of the following school subjects : Kannada, Marathi, Hindi, Urdu, Sanskrit, English, History and Civics, geography, Moral and Spiritual Education, mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, biology."


(10) REGULATION 5 prescribes the eligibility for admission. So far as the interpretation and the binding nature of these regulations are concerned, the matter stands covered by the judgments referred to above. However, the State Government issued an order on 12th of June 1981 prescribing certain requirements of admission for College of Education. This order was subject matter of a decision in Laly v. Bangalore University (ILR 1987 Karnataka-page 610). The learned single judge referring to the Government's competence to issue such orders made the following observation :"7. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The State Government cannot in the very nature and mode of its formation, be expected to consist of experts in the academic field. Whereas the Academic council consists of such experts (see s. 26 of the Act ). Therefore it is the academic Council which is the proper and fit authority to prescribe qualifications and conditions of eligibility for a student to be admitted to a course of study or for a degree or diploma. It is because of this the Legislature has entrusted this function to the Academic council (see Sections 27 (2) (c) 39 and 57 of the Act ). As per S. 27 (1) of the Act the Academic Council is the academic body of the University. The control and general regulation and the responsibility, of maintenance of the standards of instruction, education and examinations of the University are vested in the Academic Council. As such it is the Academic Council which alone is entitled to prescribe the percentage of marks to be obtained in the final year degree examination to be eligible -for admission to B. Ed. Course. . . . . . . . . . "the point No. (2) which arose for consideration was :" (2) Whether Regulation Nos. 1 and 2 are invalid on the ground that the same are opposed to Government Order dated 12-6-1981 bearing No. ED 38 UBC 81 ?"the above question was answered thus :" 7. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regulations 1 and 2 are not invalid on the ground that the same are opposed to the Government Order dated 12-6-1981 bearing No. ED 38 UBC 81. The, Government Order dated 12-6-1981 can be read only in such a manner so as to be in conformity with subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Act an only giving directions to the University to reserve seats for purposes of admission of students in the colleges or institutions maintained or controlled by it belonging to the classes of persons mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act and not prescribing the conditions of eligibility for admission to B. Ed. degree examination. "the above elucidation on the competence of the State Government to prescribe qualifications stands concluded by this Judgment. The law laid down in the above judgment makes it clear that the power of the Govt. is restricted to power of reservation in respect of its policy decision in favour of Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and other classes and it has no power to deal with academic matters.


(11) THE Government Order dated 12-6-1981 was followed by Government order No. ED 38 UBC 81, dated 22nd of July 1981 wherein it, is clarified that "the students seeking admission to B. Ed, course should have studied the subjects mentioned in Rule 3 of Revised Rules as optional subjects at the Degree level. " the revised rules referred to in this order are the Rules prescribed in Order No. ED 38 UBC 81, dated 12th June, 1981, which has been considered by this Court in the above judgment. Thereafter, order bearing No. ED 38 UBC 81 (P), dated 13th August 1981 was issued by the state Government substituting the following paragraphs in the Government Order dated 12th June 1981 and has clarified in government Order dated 22nd July 1981. The substituted paragraph reads thus :


1.

Kannada

8.

. Chemistry



2.

English

9.

Botany



3.

Sanskrit

10.

Zoology



4.

Hindi

11.

History



5.

Marathi

12.

Geography



6.

Urdu

13.

Mathematics.



7.

Physics




"students who have studied atleast one of the following school subjects at the Degree Level are eligible for admission to the College, of Education. "this was followed by Government order No. ED 60 UBC 83, dated 13-10-1983 by adding three more subjects to the above list. The subjects added are, political Science, Sociology and Economics.


(12) IT appears that these subsequent government Orders clarifying the government Order dated 12-6-1981 and prescribing the subjects to be studied at the degree level for admission to the College of Education were not brought to the notice of the Court. In view of the law laid down by this Court holding that government's power is restricted only to make reservation in favour of Scheduled caste, Scheduled Tribes and otherclasses and it has no competence to prescribe the eligibility for admission, which power is exclusively vested with the University authorities, it is clear that these orders, namely, Order No. ED 38 UBC 81 (P), dated 22nd July 1981, Order No. ED 38 ubc 81, dated 13th August 1981, and order No. ED 60 UBC 83, are without jurisdiction and they are in-effective. Therefore the petitioners have to conform to the conditions prescribed by the regulations and they cannot take shelter under the above Government Orders, which are issued without competence and are unenforceable.


(13) VIEWED in this background, the petitions filed by the Institutions, namely, writ petition Nos. 6307, 5528 and 6306 of 1987 deserve to be rejected. The management of these Institutions have come-forward with the plea that the students admitted by them and who have secured less than 45%, cancellation of their admission by the Mysore University is erroneous. This contention has no merits and it has to fail.


(14) THE petitioners in W.P. Nos. 5529 and 5849 of 1987 have secured 44. 2 and 43. 6% respectively. Since they have secured less than 45%, they are not eligible for admission. Therefore these petitions are liable to be rejected.


(15) THE petitioners in writ petition nos. 6303 to 6305/1987 have passed b. A. degree examination with minor history as optional subject. They rely upon the Government Orders dated 13-8-1981 and 13-10-1983. Since I have come to the conclusion that these Government orders are ultra vires, the powers of the state Government in respect of academic matters particularly with reference to the prescription of eligibility for admission, the petitioners can not derive any sustenance from these Government Orders. Admittedly, they have not passed the b. A. degree examination as required by note to regulation-2. As such, these petitions deserve to be dismissed.


(16) THE petitioners in writ petition nos. 6406 to 6410 of 1987 have passed B.A. degree examination with Political science as their optional subject. For the reasons mentioned above, these petitions also fail and deserve to be dismissed.


(17) WHILE the Advocates appearing for the petitioners did not dispute the legal position enunciated in the cases referred to above, they pleaded that since the petitioners have been permitted to appear for the examination, their results should be declared. Strong reliance was placed on the operative portion of the judgment in Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka university (AIR 1986 SC 1448). In this regard, Mr. Rama Jois, J while disposing of writ petition Nos. 2070 to 2116 of 1987 observed thus :"3. Therefore, when the University had prescribed the conditions of eligibility, a college affiliated to the University cannot the liberty of making admissions in contravention of the regulations. The petitioners are equally bound by law and therefore, they could not have sought admission, when they were ineligible and cannot claim any right on the basis of such illegal admission."


(18) THE observation of Mr. S.G. Doddakalegowda, J, in writ petition Nos. 14024 to 14933 of 1986 have already been extracted above.


(19) THE petitioners in writ petition nos. 2070 to 2116 of 1987 and 2117 to 2185 of 1987, and 14924 to 14933 of 1986 were all students, who had sought admission to B. Ed course. The total number of petitioners in these three cases comes to 124. To accede to the contention of the present petitioners, by invoking the doctrine of equity, would result in an Anomolous situation, 124 candidates, who had filed the earlier petitions having been denied the benefit of examination, their class-mates, who are now petitioners in these petitions should be given the benefit of examination would itself be discreminatory. The petitioners in these petitions were informed by the university that their admissions were irregular: and they were not permitted to appear for the examination. The petitioners appeared for the examinations on the strength of the interim orders issued by this Court. It is not as though all the petitioners in these petitions can plead ignorance about the Judgment, in particular Sri K.C. Ramakrishna, who is a petitioner in W.P. . No. 6315/1987 had filed writ petition No. 2128/1987. The managements of the Institution and the students of these Colleges are all affiliated Mysore University. In the Circumstances in which they filed writ petitions during the Vacation and secured interim orders indicates that they somehow wanted to appear for the examination. This conduct on the part of the petitioners deserves to be condemned. The petitioners and the Management are persons, who were watching at the doors of the court. Such petitioners do not deserve any sympathy. I have mentioned above as to how these petitions came to be filed on one and the same day and on 27th April 1987, and orders were secured on the same day

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

. The petitioners in writ petition Nos. 5528 and 5529/1987 had filed these petitions on 13-4-1987. They waited till the closing of the Courts for summer Vacation and moved the Vacation court. The Vacation Court was sympathetic towards them because the candidates were likely to lose the academic year. If the candidates had mentioned the true facts regarding their classmates or regarding the students, who had lost the battle in the earlier writ petitions, i have no doubt, in my mind, that the court would not have granted the interim order enabling these petitions to appear for the examination. Therefore, the petitioners by their conduct have disabled themselves from any equitable relief. Those who flout law cannot invoke equity. Therefore all these petitions fail and they are dismissed with costs. (20) IT is made clear that the petitioners admission to the B.Ed. course was rightly cancelled by the University. The examination, which they have taken by virtue of the interim orders of this Court stands cancelled since the admission to the B. Ed. course was itself illegal. These candidates cannot take any examination in the subsequent years to come on the ground that they are failed students. (21) THE petitioner in writ petition no. 6315/1987-K.C. Ramakrishna has suppressed the material information and he is directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000.00 to the University. In other petitions, each of the petitioners shall pay the costs to the University ; Advocate fee, in each of these petitions, to be paid separately, is fixed at Rs.500. 00. Writ petitions dismissed with costs.
O R