No Provision To Notify Changed Criteria Beforehand: HC Sets Aside 50K Cost On Allahabad University For Altering Admission Criteria After Closing Registration
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a Single Judge order by which compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was granted to respondent-petitioner for non-admission to M.A. in Women Studies since the admission criteria were changed subsequent to the closure of registration forms.The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the new criteria suggested by...
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a Single Judge order by which compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was granted to respondent-petitioner for non-admission to M.A. in Women Studies since the admission criteria were changed subsequent to the closure of registration forms.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the new criteria suggested by the Admissions Committee once approved the minutes of the meeting of the Admission Committee, came into force. It was held that there no statutory provision shown which necessitated notifying the changed eligibility criteria prior to the date of closure of admission forms.
Factual Background
Petitioner's candidature for the second Post Graduate course pertaining to M.A. in Women Studies was rejected by the Allahabad University by order dated 27.04.2023 along with Resolution 9 dated 03.06.2022 on account of non-fulfilment of criteria.
Clause 1.2 of the Brochure (Information and Guidelines) provided that the candidate must also satisfy condition under clause 1.3.8. which provided that the candidate could apply for the second Post Graduate Examination provided that he/she/they passed the first Post Graduate Examination by more than 60% marks, was granted permission by the Vice Chancellor of the University, and presented credible evidence showing genuine interest in pursuing studies in a post graduate programme.
Petitioner got 141.1 marks (highest in the OBC category) but was not grnated admission. He was found ineligible by the Admission Committee in meeting dated 03.06.2022 due to not clearing the condition of securing 9 grade points out of 10 in the previous Post Graduate Course.
In writ jurisdiction, the Single Judge directed the University to complete the admission process. Thereafter, upon filing of contempt, the University informed the Court that the Admission Committee had decided by meeting dated 03.06.2022 to alter the norms/criteria for admission in the second Post Graduate course.
The Single Judge held that selection process commenced post closure of online registration and payment on 01.07.2022. The change in eligibility criteria dated 25.06.2022 fell within the last of acceptance of online registration and payment. However, as resolution of the Academic Council notifying such change was brought about only on 29.07.2022 (after the date of closure of registration and payment), it could not be applied to the petitioner's case.
The Single Judge further observed that as the academic session applied for was already coming to an end, admission could not be considered. However, the petitioner was compensated with cost amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for being compelled to litigate thrice.
The petitioner and respondent-University both challenged the order of the Single Judge.
High Court Verdict
The Division Bench observed that once the Academic Council in its meeting dated 25.06.2022 altered the admission criteria, they came into force. It was observed that nothing was brought on record to show statutory basis for the notification of the resolution of the Academic Council in so far as eligibility criteria for grant of admission is concerned.
The Court held that once the Academic Council passed the resolution dated 25.06.2022 changing the eligibility criteria prior to closure of registration i.e. 01.07.2022, it cannot be said that the criteria was changed after the process had commenced.
The Court held that the communication dated 29.07.2022 (after the closure of registration) cannot be said to be a notification of the resolution passed by the Academic Council. As it was merely an intimation requiring the Director to act as per the decision of the Academic Council, petitioner's plea could not be sustained. It was further observed that things would have been entirely different if the communication dated 29.07.2022 was after the publication of the list of successful candidates.
Accordingly, the order by the Single Judge imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Allahabad University was set aside.
Case Title: Ajay Singh v. University Of Allahabad And Another [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 165 of 2024]
Counsel for Appellant: Dhananjai Rai, Jitendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent: Diptiman Singh, Kunal Ravi Singh