Vineet Saran - (1.) THE case of the petitioner is that in the year 2004-05, the respondent-University, which is governed by the U. P. State Universities Act, invited applications for grant of admission to "Integrated B. Tech. and M. Tech. (Biotechnology)" course of five and a half years duration. This course was besides several other courses for which admission was to be granted. THE other courses were four years duration. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there was no such course of B.Tech. (Biotechnology) or M.Tech. (Biotechnology). THE course for which the admission had been granted to the petitioner was course code GC-7, which was of "Integrated B.Tech. and M.Tech. (Biotechnology)" course. Now, what has ensued is that after four years (i.e., after 8th Semester) the respondent-University is not continuing the course and after granting them B.Tech. (Biotechnology) degree, the petitioner and other such students have been told that further three semesters would not be continued. THE petitioner has thus approached this Court with the prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent-University to allow the petitioner to complete the 9th, 10th and 11th Semesters of the "Integrated B.Tech. and M.Tech. (Biotechnology)" course for which they had been granted admission.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri R. P. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (University) and have perused the record. Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage. From the record, what is borne out is that the students had joined the "Integrated B.Tech. and M.Tech. (Biotechnology)" course and not the B. Tech. (Biotechnology) course. It is true that the fees for each semester was charged separately but the course was to be completed in eleven semesters of six months each, that is in a total period of five and a half years. This position is not denied by Sri R. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-University. However, for discontinuing the course after four years, he relies on a clause in the brochure issued by the University for the Session 2004-05, which states that "the University reserves the right not to start any course, if adequate number of students are not available." In the opinion of this Court, the said clause does not help the respondent-University in the facts of the present case, as undoubtedly they had granted admission to the petitioner in an "Integrated B.Tech. and M.Tech. (Biotechnology)" course in the year 2004-05. It would not apply to a case where the course has already started. The said course was to be completed in five and a half years. By the decision, which the University has now taken, the students will have to leave the course, with the degree of B.Tech and what Sri R. P. Tiwari states is that they are free to seek admission for the M.Tech. Course in any other college, as it is not financially viable for the University to run the course any further.
(3.) IN my view, it is not for the University at this stage to give advice to the students to seek admission elsewhere. It is for them to fulfil their obligation by completing the course for which the petitioner had taken admission. The attitude of the University is nothing short of a callous attitude towards the students and behaving like businessmen and not as an educational institution, which has an onerous duty to impart education. It is something like a student taking admission after Class XII in a Law College (for five years course), which gives an integrated B.A. and LL.B. degree and after three years, the College closes down the LL.B. course and after giving them B.A. degree asks the students to leave and tells them to join the law course in some other college. The same would be unethical and impermissible. Once a college or University invites applications for admission to a course, they have an obligation to complete such course, or else they would be liable to compensate the students, if they are left in the lurch half way through. The only ground for discontinuing the course, as stated by Sri R. P. Tiwari, is that there are not sufficient number of students for running the M.Tech. course. First of all, it is not in dispute that there were sufficient number of students for the first four years, then it is not understood as to how less students are left for the remaining three semesters, when the admission granted to all the students was in the "Integrated B.Tech. and M.Tech. (Biotechnology)" course of full five and half years. It is nowhere stated in the brochure or informed to the students that the students would have an option to leave the course after four years, or that the University could discontinue the course after four years, after awarding B.Tech. (Biotechnology) degree. The University would have had the right not to start the course initially in case if adequate number of students were not available. The clause relied on by the respondent-University, whereby it reserved such right not to start any course if adequate number of students were not available, would not be applicable midway when they had already started the integrated course.;