Legal – 66 SHORTHAND DICTATIONS
Consequently, in the present case, once the facts of the case are itself was not backed by statutory provision rather it was backed by
looked into, the inevitable conclusion is that petitioner's were conscious
of this fact that they are entitled to fill 50% of the sanctioned seats on
their own by holding an examination at state level by the group of
minority institutions spread over the entire State and 50% seats were
liable to be filled under Common Entrance Test that has been so
prescribed but at no point of time there has been any leverage or liberty
accorded to the petitioner's institution for filling up the unfilled seats
required to be filled through Common Entrance Test (C.E.T.). The
petitioners in the present case admittedly have transgressed and
overstepped limit of quota that was prescribed to be filled up by them.
Once petitioners are responsible for creating such a situation, then they
have to blame themselves instead of seeking misplaced sympathy before
this Court that said students should be accommodated. The Full Bench of
this Court has already disapproved such actions wherein the Managing
Committee in transgression and overstepping of its jurisdiction admitted
the students and the reason that has prevailed is that it should act as a
deterrent to other students not to come forward for taking admission and
then talk of equity. The petitioners are duty bound to be on the side of
the law instead of proceeding to violate the same and then trying to get
it condoned on the basis of misplaced sympathy, in view of this as far as
we are concerned, we are not at all condoning the act of the
management in proceeding to admit 34 students without any authority of
law. It may be true that said 34 students are from the same list from
which 50 students have been accorded admission. Once the quota in
question has been fixed, then the said quota in question could not have
been exceeded and overreached and in view of this, the inclusion of 34
students is totally unwarranted and the University has acted well within
its right in not entertaining such students whose entry in the stream is
violation of law. We may not approve of various observations that have
been made by learned Single Judge in the decision making process but
certainly the conclusions that has been arrived at by learned Single Judge
are being subscribed by us for the simple reason that once the quota
stood exhausted, then the college in question has no authority to admit
students even if seat in question was lying waste or going waste.
Consequently, in the present case, once the students have been wrongly
admitted and have been deprived by the University from taking the B.Ed
examination, then as already mentioned above, we cannot subscribe the
illegal act of the Managing Committee and the Learned Single Judge is
absolutely right in his wisdom in awarding compensation to the said
students as admittedly their valuable one academic year has been
wasted. Consequently, no interference is being made but before parting
we make it clear that it appears that pronouncement of the Apex Court is
not at all being complied with in its word and spirit and even minority
institutions in case they are given liberty to fill up 50% of the seats, the
same should not be a localised exercise rather all the minority
institutions will have to come forward under one umbrella for holding of
one common entrance test at State level apart from the common
entrance test being held by the State Government and it would be much
more appropriate if they join the main stream as has been directed by
the Apex Court in the case of 'NEET Examinations': Modern Dental
College and Research Center vs. State of U.P. 2019 (7) SCC 275.
Consequently, challenge made sans merit, in view of this, present Special
Appeal and the connected Special Appeal are dismissed. No order as to
cost.(664)
https://www.youtube.com/ShorthandDictations