SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THESE three petitioners are students, who have filed this joint petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed that the respondent-Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur be directed to accept their application forms for admission in M. A. (Pre.) examination for the academic sessions 91-92 and also allow them to appear in the examination considering the B. A. External Examination as equivalent to the B. A. examination held by the respondent-University by quashing the order dt. 17. 8. 1991 as the last date for submission of the forms was going to expire on 2. 5. 1992. This petition was filed before this Court on 24. 4. 1992 and on 27. 4. 1992 learned Single Judge of this court ordered to issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted and learned counsel Shri V. D. Vyas was directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. N. S. Acharya, Addl. G. A. was ordered to accept notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 State.
(2.) ON stay petition filed alongwith this writ petition, while issuing notice to the respondents, learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 27. 4. 1992 and directed the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to accept the examination forms of the petitioners for M. A. (Pre.) examination for the session 1991-92. On 7. 7. 1992, the writ petition was listed for final disposal on 10. 7. 92 by Hon'ble Justice J. R. Chopra. However, on that day while adjourning the matter to 16. 7. 1992 His Lordship ordered that the petitioners be provisionally admitted to the examination of M. A. (Pre.) and also made it clear that provisional order will be subject to the final orders that may be passed after hearing this matter finally. However, due to one or the other reason the matter could not be heard till today. Learned counsel Shri Saluja appearing for the petitioners firstly submitted that the impugned order dated 17. 8. 91 (Annex. 10) is bad in law and illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the recommendation of the equivalence committee not to give admission to those students having passed B. A. /b. Com. (Part I or II) External Examination from Osmania University cannot be given retrospective effect by the respondent University when the petitioners had already completed the said course. In support of his submission, Mr. Saluja has also relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Suresh Pal and others vs. State of Haryana and others (1 ). However, learned counsel Shri Vyas appearing for the respondent submitted that once the recommendation is made by the Equivalence Committee not to give admission to those students who have passed their B. A. /b. Com. (Part I or II) External Examination from Osmania University then there was no question of giving admission to the petitioners. There is a three years degree course for B. A. /b. Com. in respondent-Mohan Lal Sukhadia University of Udaipur. However, the Board of External Examination, Osmania University, Hyderabad was conducting B. A. /b. Com. examination having course of one year for external students. The said course was recognised by the respondent University till the recommendations made by the Equivalence Committee at its meeting held on 5. 8. 91 when they realise that the students of Udaipur City and other students of State of Rajasthan were mis-using the same by opting for one year course instead of undergoing three years regular course and de-recognise the said course which was conducted by the Board of External Examination, Osmania University, Hyderabad. On the basis of such recommendations made by the Equivalence Committee the impugned order dated 17. 8. 91 came to be passed by the respondent University to all the Heads of the Teaching Department as well as Principles, University Constituent/affiliated College informing them not to give admissions to such students in any class in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University from the Session 1991-92. From the record of the case it is clear that all the present three petitioners, who have passed their 12th class examination some where in the year 1988 have opted for a short cut of under going only one year course through the Board of External Examination. Osmania University, Hyderabad instead of under going three years regular course for B. A. /b. Com. and all of them have appeared in B. A. part I and II simultaneously in October/november, 1991 though at that time the respondent University had already passed the order dated 17. 8. 91 specifically prohibiting such students from getting admission in the University. In Suresh Pal's case (supra), which is heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts were totally different. There was a certificate course in physical education in Shri Hanuman Vayayam Prasarak Mandal, Amrawati, Maharashtra which was recognised by the Govt. of Haryana in 1975 for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor in Govt. Schools in Haryana and on that basis Suresh Pal and other petitioners of that case joined the certificate course and receiving instructions in that institution till 9. 1. 1985 when the State of Haryana de-recognised the certificate course with the result that the certificates obtained by the petitioners at the end of the certificate course became useless for obtaining service as Physical Training Instructor in Haryana. On the above facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognized, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course it was de-recognized by the State Govt. on 9. 1. 1985.
(3.) UNDER the circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the State Govt. to recognise the certificates obtained by them as a result of completing the certificate course for the purpose of appointment as Physical Training Instructor in Govt. Schools in Haryana. It may be stated that, in that very judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, "if any person has joined the certificate course after 9. 01. 1985 he would not be entitled to the benefit of this order and any certificate obtained by him from the said Institute would be of no avail. " These observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is a clear answer to the submission made by the learned counsel Shri Saluja for the petitioners. At the cost of repetition, I may say that the petitioners appeared in the examination of that course after the same was de-recognized by the University on 17. 8. 91 knowing fully well that the said course was de-recognized. Thus, there was no reason for the petitioners to appear in the examination and, therefore, claim admission on the basis of such certificates in M. A. (Pre.) Secondly, there is a difference in this case in the sence that one year course approved by the Board of External Examination, Osmania University, Hyderabad has been de-recognized by the respondent University from the experience learnt by it when it had come to know that number of students are opting for such short cut and getting admissions with it i. e. respondent University and other students of this State, who are regular students, have to under go three years degree course for B. A. /b. Com. examination. Whereas, those students can get such degree after completing one year course. Therefore, in my opinion, the decision taken by the Equivalence Committee in its meeting held on 5. 8. 91 was just and proper and if in light of the recommendations if the University had issued the impugned order dated 17. 8. 91 (Annex. 10) not to give admissions to such students then in my opinion the said order is absolutely just, legal and proper order, which should not be interfered by this Court. ;