Holding

The Court held that the appellant had met the 60% aggregate requirement, his admission was not a mistake, and he could not be made to suffer for the university’s error, so his admission must continue.

Summary

The appellant, a diploma‑holder serving as an Administrator/Instructor, obtained study leave from Jodhpur University and applied for admission to the B.E. programme after the general‑seat deadline. The university objected on two grounds: he had secured less than the required 60% in his diploma and his application was untimely. The Dean, relying on a 1970 Syndicate resolution that allowed teacher‑candidates extra seats, admitted him, but the admission was later put in abeyance. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant met the 60% aggregate requirement, whether the 1970 resolution was still operative, and whether the admission could be set aside as a mistake. Finding that the appellant’s aggregate marks exceeded 60%, that the admission was made after due consideration and not by mistake, and that the university should not penalise a bona‑fide candidate for its own error, the Court set aside the Dean’s order and restored the appellant’s admission.

Issues considered

Did the appellant satisfy the 60% aggregate marks requirement for admission?
Was admission permissible despite the application being filed after the general‑seat deadline, in view of the 1970 Syndicate resolution for teacher‑candidates?
Was the admission vitiated by a mistake that would justify its cancellation?
Are the university’s statutes, rules and the 1970 resolution required to be clear and unambiguous, and does the resolution remain effective?
Can the appellant be penalised for an error committed by the university authorities?

Subjects

admissionengineering collegediploma marksuniversity statutessyndicate resolutionmistakestudy leaveteacher‑candidateprocedural fairness

Judgment

"
A ASHOK CHAND SINGHVI +
v.
UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR & ORS.

JANUARY 18, 1989
B
[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
c 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
the application after expiry of the last date and that he had obtained less
F 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.
G On February 18, 1988 the appellant was communicated an order
dated January 20, 1988 of the Dean directing that his admission was put ...l-
'
in abeyance until further orders.

The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of withdrawal of his
H admission, before the High Court unsuccessfully.

230
A.C. SINGHVI v. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR 231

In the appeal to this Court, the objections that were raised to the
A
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, B

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 c
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]
D
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 E

- 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 F

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]
G
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
of 1989. H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 1 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.88 of the Rajasthan
High Court in Writ Petition No. 52 I of 1988.

Sushi! Kr. Jain for the Appellant.

C.M. Lodha and R.B. Mehrotra for the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DUTT, J. Special leave is granted. Heard learned Counsel for
both parties. r.;
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan
c High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the
appellant challenging the order of the Dean of the Faculty of
Engineering of the Jodhpur University, putting in abeyance the admis-
sion of the appellant in the B.E. Degree Course till further orders.

D The appellant is a diploma-holder and is serving in the 1 N .M.
Engineering College (Faculty of Engineering), Jodhpur since 1976 as
an Administrator/Instructor. In may, 1987, the appellant submitted an
application to the Study Leave Committee of the University of Jodh-
pur for study leave for three years enabling the appellant to prosecute
his studies in the B.E. Degree Course. On August 3, 1987, the Study

-
E Leave Committee recommended the case of the appellant for the grant
of study leave and on August 14, 1987 the Syndicate of the University
accepted the said recommendation and granted study leave to the
appellant for a period of three years with full pay. Pursuant to the
leave granted to the appellant, he made an application on November
14, 1987 for admission in the B.E. Degree Course.
F
At this stage, it will be pertinent to refer to a resolution dated
September 21, 1970 passed by the Faculty of Engineering recommend-
ing that the teachers of the University should be granted leave so as to
enable them to join the B.E. Degree Course as a regular candidate on
a full time basis. The said resolution was accepted by the Academic
G Council of the University on March 25, 1970 and the Syndicate in its
turn approved the resolution of the Academic Council. +
According to the appellant, the above resolution of the Syndi-
cate was acted upon and, as a matter of fact, certain teachers of the
University were admitted to B.E. Degree Course. In his application
H dated November 14, 1987, the appellant specificaUy mentioned the
A.C. SINGHVI v. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR IDUTI, J.J 233

names of seven teacher candidates who had been admitted to the A
various Departments of the Engineering College in pursuance of the
above resolution of the Syndicate and the policy of the University. The
case of the appellant· is that it is the practice of the University to give
admissions to teachers by creating extra seats in addition to general
seats. · B

The appellant made the application for admission after he had
been communicated with the resolution of the Syndicate granting
leave on the recommendation of the Study Leave Committee. Admit-
tedly, the apl'lication was made on November 14, 1987 after the last
date for admission in the general seats had expired. Accordingly to the
appellant, he was communicated with the decision of the Syndicate c
granting study leave to him on October 29, 1987 and soon thereafter he
made the application for admission. It is the case of the appellant that
in view of the practice of the University, as the teachers who are
granted study leave are admitted by the creation of extra seats, the
question of making applications after the last date for admission in the D
general seats is irrelevant.

Be that as it may, the application of the appellant was forwarded
by the Professor and Head of the Mechanical and Engineering Depart-
ment and the Dean, Faculty of Engineering, to the Vice-Chancellor.
The Vice-Chancellor referred the application back to the Dean E
observing that the Dean was competent to make admissions. Certain

- objections were raised by the Officer-in-Charge, Admissions, includ-
ing the objection that the appellant had obtained less than 60 per cent
marks in the Diploma Examination passed by him. The Dean con-
sidered the said objections and recommended the case of the appellant
for admission to the Vice-Chancellor with the following observation:
F
"However, there is another aspect of this case which
deserves consideration. The University has in the past,
allowed the teacher candidates of this faculty, securing less
than 60 per cent marks in their Diploma Examinations,
admission to B.E. Course. This was perhaps to encourage
G
the Faculty Staff to improve their qualifications so that they
serve the faculty in a better capacity.

With these precedents in view, Shri A.C. Singhvi,
Instructor, may be admitted to B.E. Degree course as a
very special case." H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A The Vice-Chancellor, after considering the facts of the case,
accepted the recommendation made by the Dean. Thereafter, on
January 16, 1988, the order for admission of the appellant was issued
by the Dean, Faculty of Engineering, admitting the appellant in B.E.
Second Year Engineering Course. Pursuant to the said order, the
appellant deposited the requisite fees on the same date and joined the
B
classes from January 16, 1988. The appellant was, however, com-
municated on February 9, 1988 with an order dated January 20, 1988
of the Dean directing that the appellant's admission was put in
abeyance until further orders.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated January 20, 1988 of the
c Dean, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and, as
stated already, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence this
appeal.

The first objection that was raised to the admission of the appel-
lant was that the appellant had not secured 60 per cent of marks which
D
was the minimum requirement for admission. Indeed, the appellant
also stated that he had obtained only 59.72 per cent of marks in his
Diploma Examination. It appears that both the University and the
appellant proceeded on the assumption that the appellant had secured
in the Diploma Examination less than 60 per cent of marks. It is the
case of the appellant that though for teacher-candidates it was .not
E necessary to secure 60 per cent of marks in the Diploma Course yet,
according to the computation mentioned in the Admission Circular,
the appellant had secured 60 per cent of marks. The Admission Circu-
lar provides as follows:
..
"It is further provided that no such candidate who has sec-
F ured less than 60% marks in the aggregate in the diploma
examination shall be eligible for admission to this pro-
gramme and the admission will be made strictly on the basis
of merit determined by taking the percentage of marks
obtained at the three diploma examinations passed as
follows:
G
- I Year: 40 per cent of marks.
+
- II Year: 60 per cent of marks.

- III Year: 100 per cent of marks.
H
A.C. SINGHVI v. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR [DUTI, J.] 235

~ The candidates must submit, along with their application,
A
true copies of marks sheets of all the three diploma
examinations.''
•
The appellant secured 21.54 (as per 40 per cent weightage),
36.27 (as per 60 per cent weightage) and 65.18 (as per 100 per cent
weightage). The total comes to 122.99 out of200. As per the admission B
--4
rules, this works out to about 61.5 per cent. Thus, it appears that the
appellant had secured more than 60 per cent of marks in the aggregate
I
in the Diploma Examination and was not disqualified for admission in
-"-t that regard.

The next question is whether the appellant should have been
admitted after the last date. We have referred to the resolution of the c
\.c Academic Council and the Syndicate with regard to the admission of
teacher-candidates. It is, however, the case of the University that the
said resolution has no effect whatsoever and admissions are governed
by the statutes of the University. There is much controver5y whether
in the past the teacher-candidates were admitted in extra seats created D
over and above the general seats. The appellant has referred to certain
cases where the teacher-candidates were admitted in additional seats
created by the University with a view to giving the teachers an
'>< opportunity to acquire higher knowledge which may be used in he
interest of the institution and which may raise the standard of teach-
ing. E

- It may be that the previous policy of the University is not in force
and the admissions are governed strictly by the statutes or the admis-
.\ l sion rules framed thereunder. In the objections raised by the Officer-
in-Charge, Admissions, it was specifically pointed out that the seats
-"' were limited and all admissions were made strictly on the basis of merit F
list drawn amongst all eligible candidates, and that no preferential
treatment could be given to anyone including employees of the Uni-
versity (non-teaching/teaching) in any discipline in any Faculty. In
spite of that objection, the Dean recommended for the admission of
the appellant. The Vice-Chancellor also considered the office note,
but approved the recommendation of the Dean. In consequence of G
such approval by the Vice-Chancellor, the appellant was admitted.
~·
It is urged by Mr. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, that the appellant could not be admitted
and his admission was illegal. There may be some force in the conten-
tion of the learned Counsel, but when all facts were before the Uni- H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A
versity and nothing was suppressed by the appellant, would it be
proper to penalise the appellant for no fault of his? The admission of
+'
the appellant was not made through inadvertence or mistake, but after
considering even all objections to the same, as raised by the said
Officer-in-Charge, Admissions, in his note. The appellant was com-
municated with the decision of the Dean as approved by the Vice-
B Chancellor admitting him to the Second Year B.E. Course. The appel-
lant deposited the requisite fees and started attending classes when he .>---
was told that his admission was directed to be put in abeyance until
further orders without disclosing to him any reason whatsoever.

It is curious that although the admission to the B.E. Degree
Course of the University is governed by statutes of the University and
c admission rules, the said resolution of the Syndicate dated December
13, 1970 has also been kept alive. Neither the Dean nor the Vice-
Chancellor was where of the true position, namely, as to whether the
said resolution had become infructuous in view of the statutes and the
admission rules. A teacher-candidate is likely to be misled by the said
D resolution. It is the duty of the University to see that its statutes, rules
and reslutions are clear and unambiguous and do not mislead bona fide
candidates. The University should have revoked the said resolution in
order to obviate any ambiguity in the matter of admission or included
the same in the statutes as part of the admission niles.

E 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 said resolution of the
Syndicate. 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.
F
It is submitted on behalf of the University that it was through
mistake that the.appellant was admitted. We are unable to accept the
contention. It has been already noticed that both the Dean and the
Vice-Chancellor considered the objections raised by the Officer-in-
Charge, Admissions, and thereafter direction for admitting the appel-
G lant was made. When after considering all facts and circumstances and
also the objections by the office to the admission of a candidate, the
Vice-Chancellor directs the admission of such a candidate, such admis-
sion could not be said to have been made through mistake. Assuming
that the appellant was admitted through mistake, the appellant not
being at fault, it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admis-
H sion of the appellant. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of
A.C. SINGH\'! v. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR [DUTI, J.[ 237

+ this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and A
another, [1986) Suppl. SCC 740. In that case, the appellants were
admitted to certain. private engineering colleges for the B.E. Degree
Course, although they were not eligible for admission. In that case,
this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the students whose
, admissions were subsequently cancelled and the order of cancellation
B
~ was upheld by the High Court. At the same time, this Court took the
view that the fault lay with the engineering colleges which admitted the
appellants and that there was no reason why the appellants should
suffer for the sins of the management of these engineering colleges.
Accordingly, this Court allowed the appellants to continue their
studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were
granted admission. The same principle which weighed with this Court C
in that case should also be applied in the instant case. The appellant
was not at fault and we do not see why he should suffer for the mistake
committed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of
Engineering.

In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the High D
Court and also the impugned order dated January 20, 1988 of the Dean
of the Faculty of Engineering and direct that the admission of the
appellant will continue.

The appeal is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to
costs. E

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.