MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Barmer dated December 1, 1987 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Munsif, Barmer dated November 23, 1987, dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner moved under Order 39 rule 1 and 2, C. P. C. The facts of the case giving rise to the revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Barmer with the allegation, in short, that the Principal, Government Teachers Training College, Barmer (non petitioner no. 2) invited applications for the training of teachers for the period 1987-89, he also submitted his application form, it was duly accepted, merit list was prepared and it was specified that the fee would be deposited and other formalities would be completed on August 31, 1987. THE candidates including the petitioner appeared before the Principal on August 31, 1989 for depositing the fee and completing other formalities. Three candidates whose names were in the merit list requested the Principal for cancellation of their selection and accordingly their selection was cancelled. For the three vacancies so created, the petitioner and two other candidates were given admission after 5. 00 P. M. the same day. THE petitioner duly deposited his fee and completed all other necessary formalities. He joined classes. He duly appeared in the first examination. On the opening of the school after the Dashera-Deepawali break on November 2, 1987, he found that his name was not shown in the attendance register and he learnt that his attendance was not marked on. the last date i. e. October 17, 1987. His father Dayaram is a teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School, Banner and the Deputy Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (non petitioner no. 4) is enemical towards him and criminal cases are pending between them. To wreck vengeance and to harass the petitioner and his father, he got his name deleted from the attendance register. Along with the plaint an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 C. P. C. was moved by the plaintiff. The trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo and to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination by its order dated November 4,1987. After hearing the parties, the application Was rejected by the trial court on November 23, 1987. An appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge, Barmer against this order and it was also dismissed by his order dated December 1, 1987. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the two courts below have acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of their jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. He further contended that the admission of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that it was not approved by the Director, it was not so provided in the rules and the Director was not empowered to cancel the said admission. He also contended that out of the three candidates admitted after 5. 00 P. M. on August 31, 1987, the admission of petitioner and one other candidate has been cance-lled and the admission of the third candidate was not cancelled when cases of the three candidates were similar. He lastly contended that the petitioner has completed two years' training and has appeared in the final examination along with the other candidates, the result of other candidates has been declared but not of the petitioner and it would be very harsh and inequitable if the result of the petitioner is not declared. He relied upon Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur (1) Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University (2) and Gulab Chand Vs. University of Jodhpur (3 ). The learned Deputy Government Advocate supported the orders under revision. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner and two other candidates were provisionally given admission after 5. 00 P. M. on Aug. 31,1987 after the three vacancies were created on that day on account of the three candidates requesting for cancellation of their selection. It is further the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner attended the classes and practicals till the start of the Dashera-Deepawali break and his attendance was not marked since October 17,1987. The case of the defendant-non petitioners is that the Director, Education (non petitioner do. 3) did not approve the provisional admission of the petitioner. The learned Deputy Government Advocate was requested to show any rule or notification under which the approval of the Director was required, but he failed to do so. It may also be mentioned here that no reason was assigned by the Director for cancelling the admission of the petitioner and he was not given an opportunity of hearing before his admission was cancelled. In such circumstances, the provisional admission could not have been cancelled particularly when the admission of one of the three candidates was not cancelled. This aspect of the case was not at all considered by the lower courts. Thus they have acted with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders.
(3.) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner has attended the class and practicals throughout the two years and has completed the training. He has also appeared in the final examination. Admittedly, the result of candidates except the petitioner has been declared. It would be very harsh and inequitable if the petitioner's result is not declared. He has completed the training for two years and has appeared in the examination. It has been observed in Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur (supra) as follows :- "assuming that the appellant was admitted through-mistake, the appellant not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission of the appellant. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur V. Karnataka University, 1986 (Suppl) SCC 740) : (A. I. R. 1986 SC 1448 ). In that case, the appellants were admitted to certain private engineering colleges for the B. E. Degree Course, although they were not eligible for admission. In that case, this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the students whose admissions were subsequently cancelled and the order of cancellation was upheld by the High Court. At the same time, this Court took the view that the fault lay with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellant and that there was no reason why the appellant should suffer for the sins of the management of these engineering colleges. Accordingly, this Court allowed the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. The same principles which weighed with this Court in that case should also be applied in the instant case. The appellant was not at fault and we do not see why he should suffer for the mi-state committed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering". It has been observed in Gulab Chand vs. University of Jodhpur (supra) as follows : - "in cases, dealing with the career of the students affecting their valuable and precious years of study, technicalities of legalism should not enter into consideration and humanistic approach should be adopted, while dealing with the educational matters of the young living beings. Furnishing of under-taking in pursuance of an order of the Court, in my opinion, should not come in the way in adopting the aforesaid approach. Various shades of interim orders are passed by the Courts but ultimately and finally the matter has to be judged and examined in the light of existing equities. Else, it may be that the order may be harsh and operating very hard on the life of a student. Guided by this consideration, in my opinion, despite the undertaking the petitioner can be allowed the benefit and advantage taken by him in pursuance of the order, whereby he was allowed to keep terms. If the petitioner has appeared in the examination keeping the terms, then the University is directed to declare his result and if he succeeds, then he shall be given the benefit thereof. " Thus the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ;