A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) WRIT petitioners no. 1, 14 and 11 - appellants, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 25.05.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. WRIT Petition No. 65529 of 2008, has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioners no. 1, 14 and 11 - appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants") were candidates for selection to the Special B.T.C. Course - 2007 in the General Category Arts (Female) and General Category Science (Female). They offered their candidature for the said course in various districts including Mathura. According to the appellants, they have been selected for admission in various districts including Mathura. The requirement for taking admission in the said course at Mathura, was that the candidates would forego their rights for admission in other districts. The appellants opted for being admitted in said course in district Mathura. Later on, it was found that persons having higher merit had been left out and the appellants had been selected and, therefore, they were restrained from continuing with the training. Aggrieved by the same, appellants preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47400 of 2008 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 12th November 2008, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Principal, District Education and Training Institute Baad, Mathura to examine the grievance of the appellants and pass appropriate orders. In the light of the said decision, the Principal, District Education and Training Institute Baad, Mathura considered the claim of the appellants along with other candidates and found that candidates with higher quality point marks were available and they had not been chosen and, accordingly, rejected the claim of the appellants by order dated 01.12.2008. Challenge to the aforesaid order had failed in the writ petition and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Judge observed as follows:- "...In between the incumbent who was incharge Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training proceeded to offer the seats to the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates. After the permanent Principal returned back and joined, then it was revealed that the candidates with less quality point marks have been included vis-a-vis candidates from reserved category with higher quality point marks have been left out. On being confronted with the situation, the petitioners were restrained from completing training. Cut of merits of Female Arts category candidates was 255.50 and that of reserved female category candidates was 255.70. In this background, requisite exercise has been undertaken and as per merit the candidates who were entitled for training have been sent for training. The order which has been passed by the Principal, DIET cannot be faulted, and same requires no interference by this Court. Consequently, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, if the seats are still lying vacant, then immediate steps be undertaken to fill up the vacancies from respective candidates solely on the basis of merit strictly as per policy formulated in the matter within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment." Mr. Shailendra, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that there being no manipulation on the part of the appellants, they ought to have been allowed to continue with the training of B.T.C. Course. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University and Anr., 1986 (Supp) SCC 740 and our attention has been drawn to the following passage of the judgment:- "...The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these engineering colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this Judgement, allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. But we do feel that against the erring engineering colleges the Karnataka University should take appropriate action because the managements of these engineering colleges have not only admitted students ineligible for admission but thereby deprived an equal number of eligible students from getting admission to the engineering degree course. We also endorse the directions given by the learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his Judgment with a view to preventing admission of ineligible students." Reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Banaras Hindu University and Anr. Vs. Km. Rohini Singh, 2000 (2) ESC 1136 and reference has been made to paragraph 7 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- "7. We also subscribed to the view of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner respondent should not be made to suffer by proxy, i.e., due to the fault, if any, on the part of the appellant. The view taken by the learned Single Judge finds support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ashok Chandra Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur, 1989 (15) KLR 357 (SC); Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 740 and Sanatan Gowda v. Bahrampur University and others, JT 1993 (3) SC 23. The observations made by the Apex Court in the cases aforestated support the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that even if the petitioner respondent was wrongly admitted on account of mistake, if any, on the part of the appellants, such mistake being not attributable to any fault on the part of the respondent herein, her admission could not be cancelled. True, respondent was not a B.H.U. student in the strict sense of the term in which the expression 'B.H.U. students' has been defined in clause 16 of the Information Bulletin and the category once indicated was not liable to be changed but if the appellants treated the respondent as B.H.U. student and admitted her as such, we are not inclined, in the fact situation of the present case, to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge even if the Information Bulletin is held to have the complexion of statutory character being an Ordinance framed by the council in exercise of power under Section 10 read with Sections 18 (1) (a) and (3) of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 and Statute 18 (xii) of the Statutes."
(3.) WE do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Judge has concurred with the finding of the Principal that after the regular Principal returned, it was revealed that the candidates with less quality point marks had been included for training vis-a-vis the candidates from reserved category with higher quality point marks who have been left out. In case, candidates with higher quality point marks are left out, any direction to continue the appellants to complete the course shall be in direct conflict with their rights. Now, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra), the same is clearly distinguishable. In the said case, ineligible candidates were admitted by the private engineering colleges and later on, although it was disapproved by the University, the students were allowed to continue their courses. On a challenge made to the disapproval by the University, an interim order was passed by the Court and by virtue thereof, they continued for a long time. In the background of the said case, the Supreme Court, taking note of the conduct of the students that they were not party to any manipulation, directed for continuance of their studies. In the said case, no other person was affected.;