Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Dec 6: In a landmark judgment, State High Court has upheld the decision of Jammu University not to regularize 292 illegal admissions made by a private BEd College in violation of Statutes and directed the college to consider payment of reasonable compensation of Rs 50,000 to each of the 292 students (Rs 1.46 crore).
The significant judgment was passed by Justice Hasnain Massodi in a petition filed by Divya College of Education, an affiliated Non-Government BEd College, seeking regularization of 292 illegal admissions made by the College on its own. Advocate Wasim Sadiq Nargal appeared for the University while as Senior Advocate B S Slathia along with Advocates Ashish Sharma and M K Raina appeared for the petitioner institute.
The admission of students to the petitioner-college and other private unaided BEd Colleges is made by the Central Admission Committee of the University in accordance with the procedure known as Centralized Counseling.
In terms of this procedure, all the aspirants for admission to BEd course in private BEd Colleges applying to the University, are selected on the basis of their merit, participation in counseling and allotted to private colleges as per their preference. The University on June 14, 2011 issued a notification inviting applications from aspirants for admission to BEd Regular Course for the Session 2011-2012. In all, 18368 candidates responded to the advertisement and out of the candidates, who appeared for counseling, 14154 were admitted and allotted to different colleges as per their choice. In all, 6870 seats in different private BEd colleges remained unfilled.
Of candidates selected, only 18 candidates opted for the petitioner-college. In view of the option exercised by the candidates, 292 seats available in the petitioner-college remained unfilled. The Association of Private BEd Colleges run under name and style of “Forum of Recognized Colleges” facing the same problem as faced by the petitioner-college, issued a notice on December 20, 2011 signifying its intention to make admissions on its own by spot counseling against the left over seats as per eligibility criteria laid down by the University but without involving Central Admission Committee of University.
However, the notice received sharp reaction from the University, which through a public notice reminded the aspirants for the BEd Course that admissions proposed to be made by the Forum were unauthorised and violative of the University Statute. However, the respondent University to resolve the controversy decided to go for second round of counseling, give an option to the candidates, who had responded to the notification dated December 20, 2011 issued by the Forum, to appear before the Central Admission Committee and get admission, following the procedure provided in the University Statute. The University accordingly admitted 414 of the 516 students, who had responded to the Forum notification.
However, the second counseling organized by the University didn’t give any relief to the petitioner college as only 3 of the 414 students admitted in the second counseling opted for the petitioner-college, which later admitted 292 students on its own and communicated the same to University. However, the University didn’t regularize the admission of 292 candidates and aggrieved over this decision, the petitioner-college filed Writ Petition in the High Court.
The petition was opposed by the University of Jammu through their Counsel Wasim Sadiq Nargal, who pleaded that admissions to BEd course in private BEd colleges and allotment of students to the colleges is to be made in accordance with the University Statutes and that too through process of ‘Centralized Counseling’ by Central Admission Committee of the University and private BEd Colleges have no authority in terms of the University Statutes to make admission on their own.
After hearing counsels for both the parties, Justice Hasnain Massodi observed, “it is abundantly clear that any direction to the respondent University to regularize the admission of 292 students enrolled by the petitioner college in violation of University Statutes, would be impermissible and not in tune with principles that must guide exercise of writ jurisdiction”.
“This, however, does not end the matter. Would it be just and fair to leave 292 students enrolled in violation of University Statutes, high and dry without any relief and remedy, is the question that calls for an answer. Though the public notice issued by the University on 14th June, 2011 informing that the colleges had no power to make admissions and that the University had the exclusive power to admit and allot students, ought to have put 292 candidates enrolled by the petitioner-college on caveat and dissuaded them from seeking admission in the petitioner college, yet the petitioner-college cannot be allowed to get enriched at the cost of the illegally enrolled students”, Justice Massodi said.
“The petitioner-college, therefore, as one of the measures to undo the wrong done to the students has to return the fee received from the 292 students enrolled in violation of University Statutes. The other measure required to be taken by the petitioner-college is to compensate students enrolled in violation of the University Statutes for loss of one academic year”, the HC said, adding “it would not be fair on the part of the petitioner college to push 292 students enrolled in violation of University Statutes to any litigation on question of compensations. The petitioner-college may on its own consider payment of a reasonable compensation—Rs 50, 000 per student to each of the 292 students admitted in violation of the University Statutes”.
While dealing with the controversy arising out of pleadings and the material available on the file, Justice Massodi pointed towards an important issue requiring immediate consideration of the Jammu University, Kashmir University and other Universities set up in the State.
“The present mechanism evolved by the University to make admissions to private BEd colleges and allotment of students selected to the colleges, leaves scope for chasing out one or more such colleges from the field and pushing them to financial disaster and bankruptcy. The record reveals that out of 21024 BEd seats for the session 2011-12 available in Non-Government Private BEd colleges affiliated to the University, only 14154 candidates have been selected leaving 6870 seats unfilled. The private BEd colleges, therefore, do not get the students up to their intake capacity. The promoters of such colleges, therefore, have to carry on their day to day affairs from admission fee and other dues received from 50% or less number of students of its intake capacity”, the HC said.
“This is only one aspect of the matter. The other and more disastrous aspect of the problem confronting private BEd colleges is the absolute choice given to the students to opt for the college of their choice. Nothing can be a more appropriate example in this regard, than the plight of the petitioner-college”.
“While, academic discipline cannot be sacrificed for the financial interest of one or more private educational institutions and the private educational institutions cannot be permitted to add to the national human resources pool, inefficient and incapable professionals, who may conveniently cover up their inefficiency under the degrees awarded after an academic/training course undergone in such private colleges”, Justice Massodi said, adding “still their genuine grievance cannot be ignored or left unaddressed. To illustrate, it would be highly unjust to allot less than 20 students to a college having intake capacity of 334 students, debar it from making admissions on its own and allot 75 students to private BEd college having intake capacity of 100 students”.
“There is to be some reasonable nexus between the number of students allotted and the intake capacity of a private educational institution. In the circumstances, the decision to give absolute discretion to a student to go for a private college of his choice and make decision as regards allotment of selected candidates to the private BEd colleges exclusively on the basis of the option exercised by the selected candidates may require a fresh look. Needless to state that the decision taken by a student as regards the college may not always be an informed decision and may at times be manipulated”, the High Court said.
The High Court has advised the Jammu University, Kashmir University and other Universities set up in the State and granting affiliation to Non-Government Educational Institutions/Colleges to constitute a High Level Committee(s) to examine the matter and make its/their recommendation for rationalising distribution of selected students amongst private BEd colleges so as to ensure that they get fair share of the admissions made by the Central Admission Committee having regard to their individual intake capacity.
“In view of the big gap between the number of selected candidates for BEd course and total intake capacity of all the BEd colleges in Jammu, the Committee is also required to look into mode, mechanism and criteria for grant of permission by the State Government and affiliation by the University to new private BEd colleges so that economic viability of such colleges attracts due attention of the State Government and University authorities as also promoters of such new colleges”, the High Court said, adding “a balance is to be struck between the total intake capacity and number of aspirants for the course. Any reckless increase in intake capacity by permitting and granting affiliation to new private/Non-Government Colleges or enhancement in intake capacity of existing colleges, is bound to compound the problem, make private educational institution like “sick industrial units” plagued by financial crisis and compel them to grant admission in violation of University Statutes, compromising the academic standards. This shall in turn pollute the academic atmosphere, lead to unhealthy trends in the sector and last of all, add ill/under educated and ill/under trained manpower to the national human resource pool”.
With these observations, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel