Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Krishna College Of Law v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 17386 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11782 (19 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

These writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, as such, they are being decided by this common judgment.  Civil Misc. writ No. 17386 of 2006 is being treated as main petition.

Petitioner's institution- Krishna College of Law is self financed; does not receive any aid from the State Government and is running a law college of three and five years duration. State Government vide orders dated 19.6.2002 and 3.4.2003 respectively granted ''No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner's institution (for shorr ''institution').  The institution was grated temporary affiliation to run three years' law course  provided the institution obtains permission from the Bar Council of India vide order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the Chancellor. Bar Council of India granted permission to the institution to run three years' law course with four Sections and intake of 80 students in each Section for the academic session 2002-2003 vide order dated 1.10.2002 in pursuance whereof the University permitted the institution vide letter dated 10.10.2002 to admit 320 students. Thus, three years' law course continued in the institution for the academic sessions 2003-04 and 2004-05; examination of the students were held and results were declared.  

The institution was thereafter granted permission by the State Government vide order dated 3.4.2003 to run five years' law course. The institution was then permitted to run three years' law course with intake of 4 Sections of 80 students and five years' law course with intake of two Sections of 80 students for academic years 2003-04 and 2005-06 by the Bar Council of India.  Vide orders dated 13.8.2003 and 11.9.2003, the Chancellor extended the affiliation to the three years' course from 1.7.2003 and five years' course from 1.7.2003 for five years respectively.

The University vide letter dated 23.10.2003 also permitted the institution to admit students in the five years' law course. For the academic session 2005-06, the University issued letters to the students who had qualified in the entrance examination to approach the colleges of their choice for admission in three years' law course and in pursuance thereof 11 students approached the institution, who were admitted. Vide letter dated 20.11.2005 issued by the University, the institution was informed that it can further admit 30 students from the list sent by the University in five years' law course.  However, only six students came forward thereafter to take admission in the institution which fact was informed to the University vide letter dated 22.12.2005.

The institution again vide letter dated 5.1.2006, the institution informed the University that only 11 students had approached for admission against the University quota and 36 students had been admitted in the management quota and that a large number of seats were lying vacant.

When the institution received no response it filled up the vacant seats from management quota in accordance with Government order dated 14.12.1999.

Examination forms together with examination fee of 480 students for examinations for session 2005-06,which were to commence in March 2006 was submitted by the institution were accepted by the University and roll numbers were also issued to the students but the institution was informed vide impugned letter dated 18.3.2006 that it has admitted students in excess of the sanctioned strength as such, the students would not be permitted to appear in the examination.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-University is estopped from refusing permission to the students admitted against management quota after having accepted their examination forms and fee. It is urged that the petitioner has admitted the students strictly in accordance with the norms fixed by the Bar Council of India and the Government order dated 14.12.1999 in which it is clarified that in case the students are not recommended by the Government or the University, the Management shall be entitled to fill up the vacant seats. It is also urged that the institution has not admitted any student in excess in the Ist year Law courses rather the respondents are confusing the matter as the institution has taken direct admission of some students in IInd year law courses which is strictly within the four-corners of the permission granted by the Bar Council of India and as such it cannot be said that the institution has admitted students more than the sanctioned strength.

Counsel for the respondent-University rebutted the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and contended that  in its meeting held on 23.3.2006, the Admission Committee of the University resolved that the admit card be issued to the students who have been admitted on the basis of the list supplied by the University and against 15% management quota. The institution, in question, had sanctioned strength of 160 seats in 5-years' law course.  However, the institution has admitted 6 students from University quota and 114 directly.  In the 5-years' course of law, the University provided a list of 30 students for admission.  

He further submits that the Co-ordinator, Law entrance Examination issued a selection letter with rank number and option of the students for the College.  This letter was issued for taking admission by 827 students of General category,498 against other Backward Class and 385 against Scheduled Caste upto 10.12.2005. The Admission Committee resolved in its meeting held on 18.11.2005 that the last date for admission was 10.12.2005 and thus, there was no justification for making admission after the cut off date. He urged that the Government Order dated 14.12.1999 was superceded by Government order dated 16.3.2005 and, therefore, the institution, in question could not fill up the vacancies in terms of Government order dated 14.12.1999.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. With explosion of population, India now today is represented by 70% youth. The young generation coming up requires vast infra-structure in education system to make them literate and complete with the work in any field of education.  The future of the country rests on the young ones today. The Government is unable to cope up with the problem of providing good infra-structure in the education system and quality schools in adequate number to meet this problem. It is rather helpless and has to rely upon on private self-financed institutions.  The students cannot be deprived of the education as the eradication of illiteracy is one of the basic goals of our Constitution which helps in eradication of poverty and other miseries.

After perusal of record, there is no iota of doubt in my mind that no excess student was admitted in the Ist year law course by the institution.  The students, whose names were included in the list circulated by the University had choice to take admission in any of the Colleges which were affiliated with the University. Admittedly, less number of students approached the institution for admission but all those students who approached the Colleges, in pursuance of the examination conducted by the University  and list circulated by it were give admission by the institution.  No one of them was denied admission nor there was any grievance by any student that he/she has not been admitted. It is apparent that the University confused the issue as the institution, in question, admitted some direct students according to circular issued by the Bar Council of India. In similar circumstance, a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 46 of 2005- Rajiv Academy of Technology and Management Mathura and others Vs. State of others passed the following orders :-

" Thus accordingly it is directed that pending disposal of this appeal or further orders of this Court, whichever is earlier, the Universities will not disaffiliate any college or take any other steps adverse to them or their admitted students because and only because the impugned Government Order regarding seat allotment and reservation has not been allowed or is not being followed by the college, in question. In other words no adverse steps will be taken if the College, in question, admits a lesser percentage of the Universities forwarded students than 85% or admits a large number of privately admitted students than 15%. This will also cover the Colleges which have admitted already more than the 15% on the management quota. We make it clear that the admissions granted by the Colleges on the management quota and which are to be granted hereafter will be so done at the sole risk and responsibility of the Colleges and the students themselves who are being thus admitted; it should be understood that no equities are finally being created in favour of the students only by reason of their admission on the management quota if those are in excess of 15%.

We also direct each and every college hereafter in regard to management quota admission above 15% to bring it to the notice of each such students admitted that the admission is subject to the results in these appeals and is being permitted on the basis of the interim order we pass hereinbelow: a copy of this interim order has to be served to each such freshly admitted students. It shall be ensured by each college and they will keep record signed documents in their possession for showing to this Court as and when necessary that each such admitted student was given a copy of our interim order before money was taken from such student for admission and admission granted to him.

The order and observations herein, however, worded, are without prejudice to the final rights and contentions of the parties in these appeals or the future proceedings.  We take note that in spite of the time honoured fifty-fifty formula honoured and accepted by the Supreme Court so far, the Government Order impugned before us, covers not merely the 2004-05 academic session but future sessions as well. Whatever might be the fate of the students, or Universities or the Colleges affiliated to them for the session 2004-05, if final pronouncement in regard to appropriateness or the otherwise of the Government Order in the final pronouncement of these appeals is likely to benefit all concerned in the future years to come. As such the appeals will be heard out fully and decided and it should be borne in mind that the results for the current academic session and the mode of admission therein might be quite different from the mode of admission which might be decided as correct and just according to the Constitution and other laws of the country for the future academic session. We make it clear that we are not directing any admission to be made by the order nor finally permitting any such admission. All admission, as we have said earlier, will ultimately abide by the results of the appeals and the admissions given or admission taken on the part of the colleges and students respectively will be with their eyes fully open that even during the academic session such admissions might be nullified and result in a loss of several months of studies to the students apart from the monetary loss which might also be a consequences of the final order in appeals.

Put up on 31st March, 2005 for further hearing, marked ''After recess'"

It is the colleges established in the private sector which have came forward to give respite to the students and professional fields by imparting education.  They invest huge amount of money and provide best infra-structure available.  Though they may not be allowed to indulge in profiteering but are certainly entitled to cover the expenses and to gain some profit so that advancement in teaching skills and infra-structure can be made by future investment.  If such colleges do not provide quality teaching or indulge in unfair practice, certainly the students will not prefer such colleges. The Government or the Universities can have only regulatory approach but certainly not the approach that would destroy the educational atmosphere which is being created in the country by participation/ establishment of these colleges in the field of education, hence every seat filled up by the institution is precious and cannot be permitted to remain vacant or go waste in any session.  The institutions, in this regard, cannot be given free hand and Government, Universities and the institutions should supplement each other to raise the standard of education day to day.  

  The controversy raised in these petitions are covered by the decision dated 12.12.2005 rendered by this Court in Anurag Kumar Tiwari and others vs. state of U.P and others wherein it has been held as under :-

" The basic idea for passing of the said order is that in self financing institution seats shall not go waste and arrangement shall be made for filling up the said seats. Consequently, in the present case also, as seats have been filled up on the same principle that the seats shall not go waste and as no complaint has been made by any candidate recommended by the University that they were denied admission and further no one has come forward complaining that his merit has been ignored, in these circumstances and in this background as on the strength of interim order petitioners have already undertaken the examination, as such consequently it is hereby directed that the result of the petitioners be also declared forthwith."

The aforesaid decision was challenged in Special Appeal Nos. 47 of 2006 Chattrapati Sahu ji Maharaj University, Kanpur Vs Rao Gajendra singh Yadava and others and Special Appeal no. 48 of 2006- Chattrapati Sahu ji Maharaj University, Kanpur Vs Anurag Kumar Tiwari and others. Dismissing the Special Appeals vide judgment and order dated 18.1.2006, the Court held as under:-

" We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shukla on the 12th of December, 2005. The following passage from his Lordship's judgment is extracted below :-

"This fact is also undisputed that each and every student who had been recommended by the University had been accorded admission by the institution, in question and no candidate come forward to complain that in spite of their name being recommended by the University they were not admitted by the institution, in question and directives were disregarded on account of extraneous considerations. Here institution has accorded admission to each and every candidate recommended by the University to the institution, in question. This fact is also undisputed that there are 100 seats sanctioned and as far as petitioners are concerned their admission has been made well within the sanctioned strength and at no point of time any dispute has been raised that there is any ineligibility or disqualification attached to them and no candidate has come forward complaining that on account of extraneous consideration there candidature has been ignored and deprived."

Acceptance of the appllant's case would mean that at the instance of the University, the Court would have to direct the withholding of result of students who have already been admitted, completed the course and taken their examinations.

The reading of the Government orders involved do not at all show that it was intended that self-financing institutions would allow their seats to go vacant even if the University was unable to recommend sufficient number of qualifying and deserving students.

          The appeals are, therefore, dismissed."

This position is more or less same in all these connected writ petitions.  That being so, they deserve to be allowed.

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent-University is directed to declare the results of the students, within 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and order, who had been allowed to appear in the examination in terms of interim orders passed by this Court.  No order as to costs.

Dated 19.7.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.