Student Declaring That He Read Info Available Online Can't Claim Violation Of Natural Justice: Allahabad HC Upholds Cancellation Of Admission
The Allahabad High Court has held that a student who has made a declaration that he has read information available online cannot claim violation of principles of natural justice at the time of admission cancellation based on the rules stated in the brochure which was available online with the form.Petitioner-appellant was granted provisional admission and allotted a roll number in MA...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a student who has made a declaration that he has read information available online cannot claim violation of principles of natural justice at the time of admission cancellation based on the rules stated in the brochure which was available online with the form.
Petitioner-appellant was granted provisional admission and allotted a roll number in MA political science in Shyama Prasad Mukharjee State Degree College in non-subject category. Though he had appeared in viva prior to written examinations, he was informed by the Convenor of the College that his admission stood cancelled.
The reasons for cancellation were that the petitioner had scored 26.25 marks which was below the cut off of 70 marks and hence he was not eligible for admission. It was stated that the fees deposited and the original certificates submitted by the petitioner can be collected by him.
Counsel for petitioner argued that the order cancelling his admission was never provided to the petitioner and was passed without giving him any prior intimation or opportunity of hearing. It was argued that cancellation of admission based on cut-off marks is not mentioned in the online form filed by the petitioner.
Further, it was argued that in absence of any order from the Principal, only a competent authority could cancel the admission of the petitioner. It was stated that the Committee formed to deal with admissions in Political Science had stated that the Admission Committee was negligent and ignorant. Counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner was punished for the fault of others.
Per contra, counsel for respondent-university submitted that the brochure prescribing the cut-off marks is available online with the form. It was also submitted that Admit Card specifically states that “Admit Card does not necessarily mean acceptance of eligibility, the documents regarding eligibility to be scrutinised subsequently.”
The Court observed that the criteria of cut-off above 70marks was mentioned in the brochure available online and it could be applied only once all application forms had been processed.
“The requirement for admission to a Non- Subject was only that the Non-Subject Candidate should have a score, equal to or higher than the score of the last candidate admitted in the subject category. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have score equal to or more than the last candidate in the subject category which was 70.”
The bench comprising Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji held that the petitioner having scored less was illegible for admission. Since all information was available online and the petitioner had made a declaration saying that he had read the information, the Court held that giving him an opportunity of hearing “would be an illusory exercise serving no useful purpose.”
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
Case Title: Akhilesh Kumar vs. Allahabad Central University Through Its Registrar And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 275 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 117 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 275
Counsel for Appellant: Amar Sukh Rai, Kapil Dev Yadav
Counsel for Respondent: Diptiman Singh, Gopal Das Srivastava