- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Challenge in the Special appeal on hand is to the correctness of the judgment dated 23-10-98 of the learned Single Judge whereby the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 194 of 1998 instituted by respondent - Ku. Rohini Singh culminated in being allowed post-fixed with the directions to the appellants to give her admission in the one-year M. Ed. Course. The petition was also awarded cost quantified at Rs. 2000. 00.
(2.) THE necessary facts as bear on the controversy involved in this appeal are that the petitioner- respondent- Km. Rohini Singh, took entrance test for admission to one-year M. Ed. Course 1997-98 conducted by the appellants. THE aforesaid course had seating allocation for 25 students including three supernumerary seats. 50% of the total seats were reserved for Banaras Hindu University students that is to say for students who have been admitted through University Entrance test, B. H. U. and have passed the qualifying examination from the Institute/faculty/mahila Mahavidyalay, Banaras Hindu University in the year of the test or one year immediately preceding the test. Out of 22 regular seats available for admission in M. Ed. Course 1997-98, six fell to the quota of candidates belonging to reserved categories (SC/st) and Orthopaedically handicapped) and eight for B. H. U. students'. The remainder of the regular seats could be shared by B. H. U. or Non.-B. H. U. students on the basis of merit. The petitioner-respondent admittedly applied for admission as a Non-B. H. U. student. Later on however she applied for being treated as a B. H. U. student on the premises that she did her graduation and B. Ed. from an affiliated college-Arya Mahila and Degree College, Varanasi. The result of the Entrance test was declared and by letter dated 3-9-97 the petitioner-respondent herein was called upon by the Faculty of Education, B. H. U. to present herself with certain documents for verification and confirmation of admission. On 12-9-97, she presented the required documents on verification whereof she was required to deposit the admission fee of Rs. 223/- the fee prescribed for admission of the B. H. U. students which she did. Consequent upon depositing the fee, the petitioner- respondent was accordingly admitted to M. Ed. course 1997-98 on 12-9-97. In the post admission stage, a communication dated 15-9-97 was received on 4-10-97 by the father of the petitioner the text of which was that the admission of the petitioner-respondent to M. Ed. course had been cancelled. The petitioner-respondent thereupon, made a representation to the visitor of the University. (The President of India, New Delhi) unfolding therein all the relevant facts and simultaneously, she also instituted Writ Petition No. 36997 of 1997 attended with the observation that the representation filed by her to the visitor be disposed of expeditiously. The petitioner-respondent received no information as to the fate of the representation and she filed the writ petition from which arises the present Special Appeal. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-respondent was intimated by letter dated 15- 5-1998 that her representation had been rejected by the visitor of the University. Then followed the appropriate amendment in the writ petition by which the petitioner respondent canvassed the correctness of the order dated 15-5-98 rejecting her representation by the Visitor in addition to the validity of the order dated 15-9-1997 rescinding her admission. The petition was resisted by the appellant-University, inter alia on the premises that the petitioner-respondent was a Non-B. H. U. student and that she was wrongly treated and admitted under the quota of B. H. U. students and on detection of the mistake her admission was cancelled; that since the admission of the petitioner-respondent was owing to inadvertent mistake, she was not entitled to be given an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of her admission.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the order of cancellation of petitioner's admission to B. H. U. in M. Ed. course, was vitiated due to the reasons that; firstly, the principles of natural justice were not only flagrantly violated but were thrown to the winds and the petitioner was treated in a most unjustified, arbitrary and capricious manner. Secondary assuming that the petitioner on account of the mistake of the authorities of University was wrongly admitted to M. Ed. course, her admission could not be cancelled as she was not at fault in bringing about the situation. Thirdly, the information Bulletin which contained the definition of the expression 'b. H. U. student', simply contained the parameters of admission not having any statutory sanctity being attributed to them; and lastly, the categorisation of students in B. H. U. and Non-B. H. U. categories had been rendered "otiose" in the fact-situation of the case. We have had heard Sri V. B. Upadhya Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Sri Aditya Narain for the respondents. We express ourselves concurring with the learned Single Judge that the impugned order of cancellation of the petitioner's admission to M. Ed. course was vitiated by reason of non-conservance of the principles of natural justice. The view taken by the learned Single Judge on this score receives reinforcement not only from the decision referred to in the judgment under challenge but also from the latest decision of the Apex Court in Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University, (1998) 8 SCC 194: (AIR 1998 SC 3261 ). Though the case related to public employment, the principle enunciated in it, would apply to the facts of the present case. The question whether the petitioner was admitted contrary to Ordinances and rules owing to any inadvertent mistake on the part of the University authorities or that she was admitted on consideration of her application given for being treated as a B. H. U. student was a question of fact and to arrive at a conclusion one way or the other, an enquiry ought to have been made in consonance with the rules of natural justice. Any conclusion arrived at sans any enquiry would be unjust, unfair and unreasonable.;