- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 25 th March, 2011 passed in W.P.(C)No.1070 of 2011, by which writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed and in addition to above the learned Single Judge has doubled the penalty amount.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is true that there was a decision of the Committee, not to admit the students who are having less than 60% marks, but the petitionerappellant admitted the students provisionally, in view of the fact that one writ petition was filed in the High Court in the name of All India Association of Technical & Professional Institutions Vrs. State of Jharkhand and ors.,2009 JCR 591 and ultimately in that writ petition, it has been held that the Committee had no jurisdiction to prescribe the minimum marks for admission and, therefore, subsequently the admission given by the writ petitioner below the marks of 60% was found to be valid. However, Committee was of the view that at the time when admission was given to the students, the committee's decision was there and it was valid and admission was given against the Committee's decision and, therefore, imposed a fine at the rate of Rs.5,000/ per students, totaling Rs.1,65,000/. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant bonafidely admitted the students and it was made clear to each and every students that their admission is provisional and shall be subject to the decision in the said writ petition. It is also submitted that in the letter given to the students, it was clearly mentioned that the students are not falling within the category of students, who have secured 60% marks or above marks. In view of the above reasons, the imposition of penalty was improper and unjust. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that it appears that the Committee and the learned Single Judge, both influenced by the allegations levelled against the appellant by the rival group, who levelled allegation of interpolation in the copies of the mark sheets of the students to justify their admission and that fact has not been adjudged by the Committee while imposing penalty upon the writ petitionerappellant on the ground that they are not in a position to adjudge this issue whether the manipulation in the marksheet was done and if done, who did it. In view of the above reason, once the Committee itself did not decide about the manipulation in the marksheet of the student, then there was no justification for imposition of the penalty upon the Institute. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the learned Single Judge also committed error of law by increasing the penalty amount to double amount of penalty for no reason.;