Judgment:
M.L. Singhal, J.
1. For admission to M.A. previous (Economics) in Session 2000-2001 at Government Post Graduate College, Hisar, Pooja Aggarwal, daughter of Sh. Tarsem Kumar Aggarwal staked her claim vis-a-vis the claim of respondents 7 to 9 saying that her merit was superior to their merit in the qualifying examination by means of suit for declaration whereby she challenged the action of the respondents 1 to 6 viz the admitting of respondents 7 to 9 to that course as being against law, wanton, capricious, discriminatory, null and void ab initio, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and as such these admissions are liable to be cancelled. She asked for the grant of a mandatory injunction against respondents 1 to 6 directing them to admit her in Session 2000-2001 in M. A. previous (Economics) after taking admission fee from her as per prospectus and allow her to join classes in M.A. previous (Economics).
2. It was alleged in the plaint that the applied for admission to M.A. previous (Economics) in Session 2000-2001 in Government Post Graduate College, Hisar (respondent No. 6). She submitted application form in the College within time. Merit list was prepared by the College on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination. In the merit list prepared by the College, she was shown having secured almost 75% marks/ There were 50 seats in the said course. 47 candidates were admitted in accordance with the merit list. She was told by the College authorities that she was not eligible because all the seats had been filled up on the last date of admission. She continued visiting the college thereafter for admission but was told by the officials of the College that asand when any seat fell vacant, she would be called. On 11.9.2000, she along with her father went to the College and asked the Principal to admit her to M.A. previous (Economics) in Session 2000-2001 since respondents Nos. 7 to 9 had been admitted though they were less meritorious. Officials of the College, however, refused to admit her. Along with the plain), she asked for the issuance of a temporary mandatory injunction directing the College authorities to admit her into M.A. previous (Economics) for the Session 2000-2001.
3. Respondent-College contesled this prayer. It was pleaded that all the 50 seals were filled up on merit. Merit of the last student was 76.92%. Merit of the plaintiff was 74.08%. As mentioned at page No. 9 of the prospectus, candidates wire required to keep visiting the College regularly and were required to look at the notice Board and thus to obtain information about withdrawal by any admitted candidate. It was pleaded that some students got their admissions cancelled. Notice was put up on 28.8.2000 informing that candidates desirous of seeking admission against such scats should apply till 11.00 a.m. on 30.8.2000. 'It was pleaded that three seats had fallen vacant and those were filled up on merit from among candidates present that day. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff did not turn up and as such she was not entitled to admission. Vide Order dated 25.9.2000, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar allowed her prayer and it was directed that she shall be given admission to M.A. previous (Economics) in Session 2000-2001 at Government Post Graduate College, Hisar.
4. Aggrieved from the order dated 25.9.2000 of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hisar, one appeal was filed (Civil Misc. Appeal No. 31-C of 2000) by I lary-ana State through Collector, Hisar, Government Post Graduate College Hisar through its Principal and other appeal was filed by Miss Sunena (Civil Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 2000). Additional District Judge, Hisar, allowed both these appeals and set aside the order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hisar, dated 25.9.2000. Pooja Aggarwal has come up in revision namely C.R. No. 5000 of 2000 and 5007 of 2000 whereby she has prayed for the setting aside of the order of Additional District Judge, Hisar dated 23.10.2000 and the restoration of the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, dated 25.9.2000.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents in both these revisions. Both these revisions will be disposed of by this common order.
6. There were 50 seats for admission to M.A. previous (Economics) in Session 2000-2001 in Government Post Graduate College, Hisar. 47 candidates are admitted in accordance with the merit list. She was told that she was not eligible because all the seats had been filled up on the last date of admission. It was submitted that she had been visiting the College thereafter and she was told by the officials of the college that as and when any seat fell vacant, she would be called. On11.9.2000, she along with her father went to the College and asked the Principal to admit her in M. A, previous (Economics) in Session 2000-2001 because respondents Nos. 7 to 9, whose merit was inferior to her merit, had since been admitted. She was. however, not given admission. The merit of the last sludent admitted was 76.92%. Petitioner's merit was 74.8%. She was required to visit the College regularly and look at the notice Board to sec if any seat had fallen vacant as was stipulated in the prospectus. She missed the bus and respondents Nos. 7 to 9 were given admission. It was not disputed that the merit of respondents Nos. 7 to 9 was inferior to the merit of the petitioner. Admission of respondents 7 Nos. 7 to 9 was sought to be defended by saying that the petitioner was required to be present for admission till 11.00 a.m. on 30.8.2000 and as the petitioner did not turn up and as such she was not entitled to admission. Case of the respondents was that the petitionr did not apply by that date and time and whosoever turned up by that time, they were given admission, in accordance with merit. It was submitted that as per the prospectus information regarding the vacant seats was to be displayed on the notice Board and that no intimation was required to be sent to the candidates through post.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the method adopted by the College regarding displaying information on the notice Board as to the seats having fallen vacant was arbitrary and discriminatory. If scats had fallen vacant, candidates higher in merit, should have been informed through post. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that respondents Nos. 7 to 9 were given admission surreptitiously. They did not have merit when the merit list had been drawn up earlier at the time of previous counselling, that merit list should have been adhered to and if any candidate commanding superior merit and selected for admission had not availed of admission, it should be deemed that he had abandoned admission due to the non-deposit of admission fees even with late fee and the seat having fallen vacant should have gone to the candidates next in order of merit automatically. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not get admission as she was not duly intimated either through post/letter or any other means or through any other medium by the College. Merit list was published on the notice Board. They should have put up notice at the end of which it should have been written that in the event of occurrence of any vacancy, the candidates falling next in order of merit shall contact the college authorities on a particular date tor staking his claim to admission.
8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that notice was put up on 28.8.2000 that the candidates desirous of seeking admission against vacant seats can apply till 11.00 a.m. on 30.8.2000 as 31.8.2000 was the last date of admission as per University Calender. It was submitted that the petitioner did not apply for admission against one of the seats having fallen vacant till 11.00 a.m. on 30.8.2000. She came tothe College on 11.9.2000. She could not be given admission as she had missed the bus. It was also submitted that if the plaintiff had been given admission, many other candidates with higher percentage could also be entitled to admission. It was submitted that the prospectus has the force of law. Whatever is written in the prospectus, the same is binding on the candidates.
9, It is true that prospectus has the force of law. It is also true that candidates are bound by whatever is written in the prospectus. But it is equally true that when once merit list had been drawn up why could not admissions take place in accordance therewith. If any candidate had not availed admission, the seat having fallen vacant thus should have automatically been offered to the candidates next in order of merit. In the application form for admission, addresses of each candidates were given and on that address, candidates could have been informed that he/she has been admitted and that admission fee be paid till such and such date, failing which admission shall be cancelled. In the prospectus, it is also mentioned that the names of the candidates selected on merit shall be displayed on the notice Board and if any of them was not able to deposit fee till the stipulated date, the candidate next in order of merit shall be admitted. Admission dates in the Government Post Graduate College, Hisar for Post Graduate Courses were as follows:
I. General Admission (withoutlate fee)
17.7.2000 to
287.2000
2. LateAdmission (with the permission of the Principal with late fee of Rs. 25).
29.7.2000 to
5.8.2000
3. Late Admission (@ Rs. 25/- perday minimum Rs.50/- and maximum Rs. 200/-)
7.8.2000
Note : The classes will start from 29.7.2000
10. Learned counsel for the respondents further sub-Ttitted that at page 9 of the Prospectus, it is clearly mentioned that the list of the candidates who are se-lected on the basis of merit shall be displayed on the notice Board for information within the aforesaid dates and in the event of any candidate not depositing the admission fee till the stipulated date, admission will be given to the candidates next in order of merit. Merit list for admission as well as any change in the admission date in the College shall be displayed on the notice Board of the College and the candidates shall regularly see the notice Board and go through the notices and no infomation shall be sent by post or by other means.
11. When once the merit list had been drawn up, it was for the College authorities to inform the candidates selected next in order of merit that he/she has been selected on account of some seat having fallen vacant and that he or she should deposit the admission fee till such and such date. When once a candidate had applied for admission, he/she could not be asked to apply for admission over again. When the seat was vacated by any candidate already admitted, candidate next in order of merit should automatically have beenconsidered by the authorities for admission. In my opinion, there was no occasion for the College authorities to have put up on the notice Board on 28.8.2000 asking the candidates desirous of seeking admission against the vacant seats to aply till 11.00 a.m. on 30.8.2000. Only merit list prepared originally was to be displayed on the notice Board so that the candidates applied for admission in accordance wild merit list. It is not provided in the prospectus that any notice will be put upon the Notice Board asking the candidates desirous of admission againsl the vacant seats to apply and for this purpose candidates were to remain in touch with notice Board as no notice for admission was to be sent through post.
12. Faced with this position, learned counsel for respondent No. 9 submitted that the petitioner-Pooja Ag-garwal cannot be given admission now when M.A. previous (Economics) course in session 2000-2001 has gone halfway. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Stale of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Dr. Anupam Gupta etc, AIR 1992 SC 932 : 1992(2) SCT 292 (SC) where it was held that to maintain excellence the courses have to be commenced on schedule and to be completed within the schedule so that the students would have full opportunity to study full course to meet their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also works handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Therefore, the vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seals cannot be sustained. He also drew my attention to Anil Jain, M.S. General Surgery and others v. The Controller of Examinations, Maharishi Day and University, Rohtak, 1997(2) PLR 832 where it was held that 'the commencing of the course of study fixed by the Authorises have a purpose and that is not to be treated as formality to be violated by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Prospects issued by Maharishi Dayanand University specifically provided thai the admission will close one month after the start of the Session and no candidate shall be admitted after that even if a seat falls vacant. This provision has to be honoured not by its breach but by its adherence. One month has lapsed after the beginning of the course even prior to the filing of this writ petition. On that count also, petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for in this writ petition.'
13. In my opinion, this ratio will not apply to this case because those were professional courses. M.A. (Economics) is not a professional study. In this case, one thing is quite clear that respondents 7 to 9 were lower in merit vis-a-vis the petitioner. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there were more than 15 candidates who were higher in merit than the petitioner and since they did not reach in time on 30.8.2000, they were not admitted in the said course. One Anurag having 80.5% marks could not get admission because he could not reach in time.
14. In this case, the College authorities should not have given admission to respondents Nos. 7 to 9. They should have given admission to candidates higher in order of merit against ihe three seats which had gone unavailcd ofby the candidates who had been originally selected for admission to those seats. College authorities should have informed the candidates that they had been selected against those seats which had fallen vacant due to the non- availability of the seats against which they had been originally admitted. Merit of respondents Nos. 7 and 8 is also inferior to the merit of the petitioner but since the petitioner has to claim only one seat and nobody else has come forward to claim admission againsl the seats against which respondents 7 and 8 have been admitted, admission of respondents 7 and 8 shall remain unaffected. Learned counsel for respondent No. 9 submitted thai the admission of respondent No. 9 should also remain unaffected when admission can not be offered to the petitioner in the mid stream since respondent No. 9 has already been attending the course for the lasf four months. I do not think she should be displaced now.
15. Petitioner has grima facie case. She will lose one year and thus suffer irreparable injury. Balance of convenience is also in her favour. Respondent-College is, therefore, directed to allow admission provisionally to the pelitioner forthwith as an interim measure. Respondent No. 9 shall also not be displaced in the mid stream. Rights of the petitioner vis-a-vis the rights of the respondent No. 7 will be determined finally in the suit when it is finally disposed of.
Revision petition is disposed of.
16. Revision allowed.