ESHA SAJGOTRA Vs. MATA VAISHNO DEVI UNIVERSITY & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in this case is a student of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, which is a creature of the J & K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University Act, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). Under Section 10 of the Act, "Shri Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board" (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Board") is the supreme authority of the University. The "Board" has been constituted under the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988. The University is a religious institution as it is solely financed by the "Board" for its establishment, maintenance and ultimate management lies with the "Board". His Excellency the Governor of the State by virtue of his office is the Chancellor of the University. The University has some constitutional guarantees as provided by the Indian Constitution and spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 11 Judges Constitution Bench which was constituted to decide the case of TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002 8 SCC 481, followed by five Judges Constitutional Branch in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and Another v. State of Karnataka, 2003 6 Supreme 303. It is advantageous to mention here that under law, for the determination of minority status of the university, the State of J&K has to be taken as a unit and not the whole of India. Being a minority institution, it has a guarantee or assurance to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice. Under Article 30 of the Constitution, it has certain advantages. Similarly, the management of such an institution cannot be taken away. Of course, the institution can be closed down in national interest such as where the security of the Nation is threatened by imparting the education of fundamentalist nature. The institution has preferential right to admit students of their own community/language. It is also worth mentioning that the university has a right to receive or ask for aid. Under the Act, the aims and objects of the university are to disseminate and advance knowledge, wisdom and understanding, and to offer scientific and technical education of the highest standards by teaching and research and by the example and influence of its corporate life. Under Section 6, the university is open to all persons of either sex and of whatever race, creed, caste or class. It is a residential university and has to maintain the religious purity in the name of the deity of Goddess Vaishno Devi who is the owner of all the property of the Shrine either already had vested in its name or subsequently acquired including the offerings. All the members of the university fraternity are required to lead a puritan life style while being in the campus premises such as abstinence from consuming alcohol, taking of drugs and non -vegetarian food, smoking and gambling, etc.

(2.) THE complainant was attracted to advance his academic career in the university by choosing to do "post -graduation in philosophy" but all her hopes were dashed to the ground when she received copy of the order passed on 28th of August 2009 by the Assistant Registrar (EXPA) whereby and whereunder her admission in M.A. (Philosophy) Course 2008 Batch was discontinued by stating - "I am directed to inform you that as per the university rules, you have secured CGPA of 4.80 points which is below the acceptable limit of CGPA to become eligible for continuation to 3rd semester of M.A. (Philosophy)". It was also mentioned in the order that it was issued with the consent of the competent authority. In order to vindicate the infringement of her right to receive education; she has knocked the doors of the Commission inter alia making allegations in the complaint that in order to undergo the P.G. course in M.A. (Philosophy), on 18.8.2008, she deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 22,800 and Rs. 6,700 respectively (vide Annexures A and B attached with the complaint). That there are four prescribed semesters of M.A. (Philosophy) and after the receipt of total amount as stated above in the sum of Rs. 29,550, she was allowed to undergo the course in 1st semester. That within a span of two months, she made application on 15.9.2008 (Annexure 'C') before OP No. 2 seeking permission to drop out from 1st semester on the basis of sickness supported by medical certificate. It was stated in the application that on the day of getting admission, (i.e. on 24.9.2008), she had obtained oral permission to appear in the ensuing B.Ed. exam but unfortunately during examination period she fell sick and Doctor advised her complete rest. Her request was accepted and OPs gave her permission to pursue the course of 2nd semester. vide Annexures E and F, the requisite fee in the sum of Rs. 5,100+Rs. 6,700 respectively was accepted on 6.1.2009. She attended the course of 2nd semester regularly and appeared in the examination. She secured 4.80 SGPA and on 4.8.2009 she applied for admission in the 3rd semester by depositing an amount of Rs. 23,400 (vide Annexure 'G'). She has made allegations of harassment against professor R.S. Mishra who demanded bribe of Rs. 50,000 for getting admission in 3rd semester. Her case in brief is that she had been granted permission to drop from appearing in 1st semester on health grounds and as per rules minimum GPA required for continuation of registration is 4.5 points at the end of 1st semester. She was not having SGPA of 4.5 points; how she was allowed to sit in the 2nd semester of the examination. She was able to appear in the 2 semester because permission had been granted to her by OP No. 2 by accepting the fee and now the OPs were estopped from raising the objection that CGPA of 5 was required for admission in 3rd semester. That the complainant had made representation before the Director School of Philosophy, language and culture which was sent for approval to OP No. 2 (Vice -Chancellor). She has produced the record in the form of application made on 6.8.2009 addressed to the Director School of philosophy language and culture of the university under the heading "Permission for admission in next semester". It is further alleged that her case was processed by the concerned officials and finally submitted to OP No. 2 who firstly wrote, "unless Ist semester" and then after erasing the same it was substituted by writing: "she has to go as per rules. Such request should be stopped at Dean's level". While issuing the communication bearing No. SMVDU/A&E/09/1781 dated August the 28th of 2009 (EXPA); career of the complainant has been spoiled by ordering to discontinue her course of studies when she had been allowed to pursue and appear in the IInd semester which she had cleared by obtaining 4.80 SGPA. That she has paid fee for three semesters as stated above and incurred expenses on her person for boarding and lodging. The total of personal expenses and the payments made for admission and tuition fee has been quantified by her at rupees two lac. The reliefs claimed by her from the OPs are:

(3.) IN the written version, the OPs have raised the first preliminary objection to the effect that complicated questions of fact and law are involved in the case which can be decided in an effective manner only by a civil Court and not in a summary manner by the Commission. The second objection is that the complainant has filed false affidavit by suppressing the material fact in respect of her undergoing B.Ed. course which fact she admitted in her letter dated 17.12.2008 addressed to OP No. 2. She has thus committed the offence of forgery. On facts, it is admitted that for the Ist and 2nd semester, she had secured cummulative grade point average (CGPA) to the extent of 4.80 points which was less than the minimum of 5 CGPA required under rules for the 1st and 2nd semester combined in order to secure admission in the 3rd semester. She was declared unsuccessful candidate in the 2nd semester and on her own she deposited the fee in the account of the OPs in J&K Bank, Branch Kakryal. With regard to the allegation made in para 2 of the complaint that "she had deposited Rs. 29,550 for allowing her to undergo the course in the 1st semester", the reply given in para No. 2 of the written version is: