Skip to content


Narayanaswamy Vs. Director of Technical Education - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. No. 286 of 1985
Judge
Reported inILR1985KAR2018
AppellantNarayanaswamy
RespondentDirector of Technical Education
Appellant AdvocateMohandas N. Hegde, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.V. Narasimhan, HCGP
DispositionWrit petition allowed
Excerpt:
.....serve the object or purpose of the act, which is a social as well as a welfare legislation - petitioner's transfer was notified in the notice board of the director of technical education as well as in notice board of the college. having passed an order of transfer, director should have taken precaution to see that order is effectively communicated or made known to the candidate to the address given in the application form seekingadmission or through college authorities......bangalore but had only expressed his desire for change of subject at the time of joining the college. director could have either granted that relief or refused, but, forfeiture brought about on account of change of college without due notice or intimation to join latter college within a particular period is illegal, unjust and opposed to principles of natural justice. his submission is that petitioner was unaware of the change effected during vacation, and time provided for admission apart from being too short impossible to visualise the admission would be made even during vacation.6. points emerge for consideration are (i) whether petitioner had the knowledge of order of transfer, transferring him from b.m.s. college of engineering, bangalore to university visveswaraya college of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Doddakale Gowda, J.

1. In the process of selection of students for admission to Engineering Degree Course for the academic year 1984-85, petitioner was selected and assigned to B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore, to study Mechanical Engineering, and in fact joined the College on 22nd September, 1984remitting necessary fees. Request made for change of subject from Mechanical to Civil Engineering at the time of admission appears to have been forwarded to Director of Technical Education, who is the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Immediately, College was closed for Dasara Vacation and as usual, as a student hailing from moffusil went to his village during vacation. On re-opening of the College, when went to attend classes, he was informed by the College authorities that his admission to B.E. degree course in B.M.S. College of Engineering has been cancelled and assigned to University Visveswaraya College of Engineering, Bangalore.Accordingly, when went to join the University Visveswaraiah College of Engineering, he has been informed that last date fixed for admission i.e., 27-10-1984 having expired, not possible to admit him. As a result, he is in neither B.M.S. College of Engineering, nor University Visheswaraya College of Engineering, Bangalore. Right of admission secured has been lost. Contention of petitioner is that forfeiture of admission is based on irrelevant grounds for which he can-not be held responsible and a mandamus be issued to admit him to B.E. degree course of 1984-85 so that he can prosecute his studies.

2. Submission of Sri Mohandas N. Hegde, Learned Counsel for petitioner, is that some seats in University Visveswaraya College of Engineering are still vacant. Miss. Vinutha N. Reddy and Miss, Uma Maheshwari have been admitted to the college in the month of December, 1984 and admission denied to petitioner on the ground that last date fixed for admission has expired without giving due intimation of variation has infringed his fundamental right guaranteed under Constitution.

3. Per contra, Sri S.V. Narasimhan, Learned Government Pleader submitted that no candidate has been admitted after the expiry of last date fixed for admission. First modified list was published on 540-1984 in all Notice Boards ofEngineering Colleges fixing 9-10-1984 as the last date for admission. Petitioner's transfer was notified in the notice board of the Director of Technical Education as well as in notice board of the college. If petitioner has not verified the change, from notice affixed in notice board, authorities cannot be held responsible for his lapses and he alone must think his stars.

Sri Narasimhan further submitted on instructions from Director of Technical Education that he has requested Registrar of the University to secure necessary material from principal of University as to whether any candidate/s has/ have been admitted in December, 1984 including persons referred to above and also regarding vacancy position as he is not under his control and to defer hearing till then.

4. Order sheet of this case establishes that this case has been adjourned about twenty times on one ground or the other. Apart from intervention of summer holidays for Courts, academic year is coming to an end. It only be-speaks of seriousness and care respondents look at human being involved. The way in which hearing is prolonged gives an impression that respondents intend to avoid decision on this issue or to deprive petitioner relief on the pretext that academic year has already expired. This only shows the respect or regard Director has got towards law and machinery administering justice. Judicial consciousness will notencourage such tactics. After all University Visveswaraya College of Engineering is not faraway from the office of the Director of Technical Education and it is just opposite to his office. Assuming that the Principal of the University Visveswaraya College of Engineering is not under his control, and he wanted to secure information through Registrar of the University of Bangalore, it would not have been impossible or difficult to get necessary information if he really intended, having regard to present day communication system. Hence, request for adjournment is refused.

5. Contention of Sri Mohandas N. Hegde, Learned Counsel for petitioner is that neither petitioner has sought for a change of college, nor sought for cancellation of his seat in B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore but had only expressed his desire for change of subject at the time of joining the college. Director could have either granted that relief or refused, but, forfeiture brought about on account of change of college without due notice or intimation to join latter college within a particular period is illegal, unjust and opposed to principles of natural justice. His submission is that petitioner was unaware of the change effected during vacation, and time provided for admission apart from being too short impossible to visualise the admission would be made even during vacation.

6. Points emerge for consideration are (i) whether petitioner had the knowledge of order of transfer, transferring him from B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore to University Visveswaraya College of Engineering, Bangalore or whether forfeiture is on account of his own lapses (ii) if not, void for non-compliance of principles of natural justice.

Source of power to transfer a student from one college to another after admission is over or power to annul an admission made to one college and/or to issue a direction to join another college, though there is no such requisition, is not divulged. Rules governing selection provide for determination of eligibility and assignment of such number of candidates as are equal to intake of a college or government quota, as the case may be. University or Government may permit exchange or transfer from one college to the other and vice versa, having regard to the scheme of the Act. However, It is assumed for the purpose of deciding this case that he has got power and consequence of exercise of power alone is examined.

7. Denial of admission is justified not on actual communication or notice of the order of transfer but onconstructive notice. As already indicated, plea is that transfer Was notified in notice boards of respective institutions and petitioner, if not joined the college within the permissible period, respondents cannot be held responsible for his laches.

A student, after admission cannot be expected to keep a watch over a notice board as to what a Director would notify, during vacation. If a student is anticipating any Variation or waiting at the doors of office of the Director for a favour or a mercy, quite possible to expect such candidates to watch the Notice Board but not otherwise. Petitioner except expressing his desire for change of subject had not sought for change of college. Probably, petitioner had lost all hopes of securing admission to University Visveswaraya College of Engineering after his admission to B.M.S. College of Engineering. Unless there is an effective communication of order of transfer, denial of seat on the ground that last date fixed for admission has expired, is not merely unjust, but also inhuman.

8. Knowledge of transfer is attributed on the basis that transfer was duly notified in the Notice Board. Whatconstitutes notice is insusceptible of exact definition. But what a reasonable man would regard it as fair and proper notice having regard to particular circumstances of the case depends upon various factors. Publication of an order at a place or at a time, when affected person could not have even the possibility of noticing it, except the person notifying it, can-not be treated as a publication of the order of transfer to attribute knowledge. Undoubtedly, it is a fundamental right to seek admission and having obtained admission after successful passing of P.U.C. and/or competitive examination right secured cannot be deprived so lightly. The hopes and aspirations of a prospective student cannot be shattered in such a cavalier manner. Having passed an order of transfer, Director should have taken precaution to see that order is effectively communicated or made known to the candidate to the address given in the application form seekingadmission or through College Authorities.

9. Supreme Court in State of Punjab - v. - Amar Singh* has treated thus :

*

'We are therefore, reluctant to hold that an order of dismissal passed by an appropriate authority and kept on its file without communicating it to the Officer concerned or otherwise, publishing it will take effect as from the date on which the order is actually written out by the said authority; such an order can only be effective after it is communicated to the Officer concerned or is otherwise published.'

Equitable doctrine of constructive notice cannot be applied to deprive a fundamental right. Valuable right of admission acquired cannot be deprived by attributing knowledge of transfer pursuant to a notice put up in Notice Board or by inferences. Under peculiar circumstances of the case, only inevitable conclusion is that petitioner had no knowledge of order of transfer. It necessarily follows that deprivation of admission without giving him sufficient time from the date of knowledge to join the University Visveswaraya College of Engineering is opposed to principles of natural justice.

10. Even after the receipt of notice of this Writ Petition, complaining of various laches, no steps have been taken to remedy the grievance. As a Chairman of the Selection Committee, it is his responsibility to see orders passed by him or the Committee are adhered to or given effect to. Instead of solving problems sympathetically appears to gain pleasure in harassing or depriving legitimate claim foradmission. Impugned inaction to secure admission is deliberate and actuated by collateral consideration. Further, when Miss. Vinutha N. Reddy and Miss. Uma Maheshwari are admitted in December, 1984, there is no justification for not extending the same benefit to petitioner also. Submission of Sri Mohandas Hegde that few more seats in University Visveswaraya College of Engineering are still lying vacant is not controverted.

Hence, Writ Petition succeeds. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus shall be issued directing Respondents to admit petitioner to University Visveswaraya College of Engineering -third Respondent, forthwith. Only way in which the agony and torture suffered could be compensated is to impose costs, payable by the first Respondent, which in the instant case is fixed at Rs. 500/-. Rule made absolute.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //