1994 PLP 1739 (CLC)

(i) last date for making .... 27‑9‑1993 till applications 2‑00 p.m. (ii) date for written test .... 11‑10‑1993 (iii) date of interview .... 14‑10‑1993 (iv) date of notification of first list on merit .... without a date but probably on 30‑10‑1993. It is clear from the above schedule that there were more than two weeks intervening between the last date for receipt of the admission forms and the written test. This was obviously justified and the purpose must, have been to scrutinize the applications. In preliminary objection No.l it was urged that since the number of students was so large and the time given was very short, therefore, it was not possible to check result card of each and every student so repeatedly announcement was made that the students only passing BA. examination as well as the subject in 2nd Division should enter the Examination Hall.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.l and 2 was asked to intimate this Court as to the total number of applications received by the respondents for admission to MA. Fine Arts. The total number according to Annexure `Z/1' comes 41 out of, which 9 were absent. This could not be by any standard termed as so large and unmanageable crowd. The respondent No.3 had categorically stated in her explanation Annexure `Z/2' submitted by the respondent No.1 alongwith her statement that she was not aware that the required minimum marks in the subject are 451~1o. This also falsifies the plea of the repeated announcement outside the hall because if the announcements were made the respondent No.3 must have learned about the basic qualification. This is not all. There, as already noted, more than two weeks intervened between the written test and the submission of the forms. It was the duty of the respondent No.l to get the application forms checked up and get a list of eligible candidates prepared and notified. This was not done. I have, failed to understand the purpose for the gap of two weeks when nothing was to be done. This is not all. The petitioner has not cheated. She admittedly had appended with the admission form correct copy of the provisional certificate, therefore, this is first step where the respondents are guilty of gross ineffeciency and indifferent to their duties. ,

8. The interviews were held as per schedule on 14‑10‑1993. The petitioner alleged that although she appeared at her turn yet she was not interviewed. This was the other stage where the respondent No.l should, have known of the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Fine Arts in her BA. The members of Interview Board must have complete data of the candidates before them. There cannot be any explanation for failure on the part of tg respondents particularly respondents Nos.l and 2 in this behalf except that they were indifferent towards the , admission process or it was just a formality. Now coning to the Annexure `Z/1'. The name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.37 and in the interview column a line has been put to show that she was not interviewed. This is the document on the basis of which the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that she was not qualified to be admitted to the College because she was not interviewed. While this point was being argued with reference to this annexure, I expressed my doubts as to the genuineness of this document but the learned counsel maintained that she was awarded zero mark and thus she had only 31.93 marks to her credit, therefore, was not entitled to admission on merits as well. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this document is a forged and fabricated document introduced with purpose to make out a plausible defence otherwise the petitioner was granted 5 marks in the interview and if these 5 marks are added to her total appearing in this document then petitioner was entitled to admission on merits. The learned counsel, in this behalf, referred to Annexure `R/5' with the written statement. This is an explanation submitted by the respondent No.l to the Secretary Education on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. The relevant portion reads as under:‑‑.. " subject who according to the explanation of the Head of Department managed ,to tamper with the pro from by hook or crook and added 5 marks in the blank column of interview to enable her to qualify for the aggregate of III merit list and unluckily the teacher on duty signed her admission slip in ignorance." This prima facie supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner because even in accordance with respondent No.l's own showing the petitioner had 5 marks to her credit in the interview. The learned counsel for the petitioner further added that the plea is false on the face of it because according to the respondent No.2 she only looked at the total marks obtained by the petitioner. The relevant portion of her version reads as under: " ....The staff member who had made the original list was on leave and the staff member who was asked to make the admission and prepare the challan forms did not realize that the candidate was not eligible for admission and just looked at the grand total ....'" , It is another matter that in the total the 5 marks of the interview have not been added. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the tabulation Annexure `Z/1' and copy of its page appended with the written reply are forged and fabrication documents. On the basis of this material it was forcefully argued that the respondents Nos.l and 2 are not only inefficient and guilty of dereliction of the duty but they can go to any extent and come down to any level to justify their action.

9. It is interesting to note that the merit list prepaid has neither been signed nor initialed by the respondent No.l and members of the Board. What authenticity can be attached to this list and what is its effect would be discussed towards the conclusion of this judgment. Be that as it may, this is the third occasion where the respondent No.l failed to handle the affairs.

10. Before switching over to the next point it is worthwhile to refer to the procedure adopted by the respondent No.l for granting admission to the students at least to the MA. Classes as there is nothing on record as to what havoc is being played to the rights of the students of First Year and Third Year classes. The procedure adopted is inflagrant violation of the merit policy. The written test carries 25 marks which is arranged by the Head of the Department with the assistance of the other staff while there are 10 marks reserved for interview and respondent No.l is the Chairman of Interview Board. This way the respondents Nos.1 and 2 carry 35 marks in their pockets which arm them with more than sufficient power to grant admission to the students of their own choice. In the manner the merit list is tabulated has been discussed in foregoing paragraph. No authenticity can be attached to the 'tabulation made by the respondents Nos.l and

2. The students to the, top professional College especially Medical Colleges and Engineering University are granted admission in accordance with their performance in the F.Sc Pre‑Medical Engineering or other examinations but perhaps it does not suit all concerned as it would take away their power of exploitation in the matter of admission but now when the fundamental rights are in force they cannot be constitutionally and legally allowed to conduct the affairs in the manner it suits them. The admission should be absolutely on merit in accordance with the performance of students in the previous examinations held by the statutory bodies like Board of Secondary Education and Universities. The conditions of overall second division and also second division in the subject are justified while the written test and interview by the College Authorities surely furnish basis for neoptism, favourtism and corruption. If of course suits the College Authorities because on the one hand they have assumed absolute and arbitrary powers in the admission matters and on the other hand, provided them ample opportunity to oblige their superiors which is necessary to maintain their high position. In the present case out of 82.5 marks the respondents have 35 marks in their pockets which are sufficient to exclude the students entitled to admission on merit, therefore, this provision in the prospectus is declared unconstitutional and illegal. I am fortified in my view by the judgment reported as Ajay Hasia etc. v, Khalid Mukin Sehravardi and others etc. (AIR 1981 SC 487).

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously and vehemently argued that the respondent No.l is guilty of malpractices in the admissions. It is not for this Court to hold an enquiry. I wish that the Secretary Education should have probed into the complaint of the petitioner beyond sending for explanation of respondent No.l. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this was not done because the respondent No.l has vast powers and she has been obliging her superiors, therefore, the Secretary Education could not proceed against her. Be that as it may, it is not for this Court because this is out of the scope of this writ petition. There is another issue which requires to be dealt with. The petitioner when complained to the Secretary Education the respondent No.3 took up the stand that the admission was granted on account of a mere over sight and human error on the part of staff members of the Fine Arts Department. In the end she regretted for the human errors of her staff members. It is very easy to shift blame to the others and especially to the subordinates. The respondent No.l was Chairman of, the Interview Board. How she can absolve herself of the responsibilities of not going through the personal data of the students to be interviewed. She was directly invtilved at least at this stage. This is beside her liability for the lapses as head 6f the institution.` She is responsible for all and every lapse committed by her staff because that would show that she has no grip on the administration and lack of interest in the affairs of the institution. It is not possible to believe all this. The statement of respondent No.3 is also appended with Anaexure `R/5', which as a whole and particularly paras. 5 and, 8 of it tried to prove the, above observations about respondents No0 and

2. It seems that she has refused to become party to the misdeeds of respondents Nos.l and

2. This is also evident from the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.l,and 2 that on account of her lapse she‑ has been adversely reported. If that is so then it is most unfortunate and unfair. The enxiety of the, respondents Nos.l and 2 seems to be to save their own position and to shit the burden to somebody else and for that junior most in the hierarchy is always the best suitable person.

12. The action against the respondents Nosh and 2 for deliberately making misstatements and producing forged and fabricated documents is, not being initiated and it is deemed sufficient that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary Education for information and necessary action especially in respect of future admissions to the institutions as such instances and policies mar the reputation of prestigious institutions. A 'copy also to be placed on the ACR Dossier of r9spondents Nos.l and 2' because this will . help their Reporting Officers and Countersigning Officers to assess their performance.. ' . This petition was liable to be accepted but during the pendency of this ` writ petition petitioner moved a Criminal Original No. 241‑W/94, wherein it was alleged that the respondent No.l had not allowed the petitioner to deposit the examination fee and admission form to take MA., Part I Examination. The notice of the same was issued to the respondent, who submitted reply and C explained that the petitioner failed to qualify send‑up examination for MA., Part I. Thereafter she alongwith other students was given another chance to qualify the send‑up examination but this time the petitioner was found cheating and she confessed her guilt in writing. Now if this petition is allowed the respondents can set at naught the order passed by processing the case of unfair means. The Court should not pass an order which can be circumvented or set at naught by the respondents, who in this case, are capable of going to any extent as is evident from the preceding paragraphs of this judgment.

13. The upshot of this discussion is that this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 1 AA./A‑622/L . Petition dismissed.