Sourabh v. Maharishi Markandeshwar University And ORS

 
    
     
 



 !

"#$#%& ' ('  ) ''

#% * + *$,$ - ) -. )

+)  ) '' $/%!

%
-& 01-')
)1 2
 )
  01-')


1.)1
 
 

           



        )1 2
''3* !



#   $   %  &
'(   !) *+ ,*,,  .'/

 

       1-2  '#  



  

 

    ,*!( , 5



    6  

 /

 

 7* !! ,*,7

  -     0&
'(2   !) *+ ,*,, 

 #   

 5    





    #

  #



   & 

    

#

$



  &  # 

# $

 '

1-  #- 





 

#

 

$'

B.Sc Agriculture (Hons.) The candidates should have passed Senior Secondary (10+2) examination from recognized Board/University with 5 subjects including English as one of the subjects or equivalent examination with Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Mathematics or Agriculture stream with 50% marks (45% for SC/ST categories).

:

; -  '1-  



  !,

&   -

/ <   



6  

  / =

 

  #

  + - #    

$    

 -

&  

# $



  



$ 



 

( < 

    '1-

 
  

       

2 
  !" #     $ %  &

& '

!"(( ) 

%

* +&

,'

)  





   #$'

"
  

       - 9.The misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules. In our opinion, that is precisely what has happened. Such a course was disapproved by this Court in Regional Officer, CBSE vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Others [(2003) 7 SCC 719]. In paragraph 6 of the Judgment, this Court observed as follows:

6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases, it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions........... ".
   !  "   #           

$ %  -

13. Now, we would refer to the law settled by this Court in various Judgments to the effect that interim orders of the nature passed in the present case are detrimental to education and its efficient management. As a matter of course, such interim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations and it is subversive of academic discipline.

In Regional Officer, CBSE v. Sheena Pethambaran, [(2003) 7 SCC 719], at page this Court has observed: "6. This Court has on several occasions earner deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the

 petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions"

In the case of C.B.S.E. & Anr. v. P. Sunil Kumar & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 377], the institutions whose students were permitted to undertake the examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education were not entitled to appear in the examination. They were, however, allowed to appear in the examination under the interim orders granted by the High Court. In that context the Supreme Court observed:

"4 "But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the Court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of the students.

In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal [(1993) 4 SCC, 401] the Supreme Court observed that such interim order is subversive of academic discipline. The relevant observations are as under:

"We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, illGconceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates... The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions."

Yet in another case i.e. in the case of A.R Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Govt. of A.P. [(1986) 2 SCC 667] this Court held that:

6 "We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws."

In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teacher's Training Institute [(1991) 3 SCC 87] this Court observed that the direction of admitting the students of unauthorized educational institutions and permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked on with disfavour and the students of unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Educational Department of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and the High Court committed an error in granting permission to such students to appear at the public examination.

In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati [(1998) 3 SCC 5], this Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court to issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future.

In Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow [(1984)1 SCC 307], the Supreme Court observed:

"3 Whenever a writ petition is filed provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a castG iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible."

In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435], it was held that the students of unrecognized and unauthorized educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ Petition being filed to appear in the examination and to be accommodated in recognized institutions. This Court observed:

"12. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education."

 !* >

   #

 -

-

 

      

   & /

 



 $ /

  -

- !!

/ 

 $

$  & /

 

- 

$   

#

    

  %  %  #



 

  %

   

   



   

-    # !, 5 $

# /  

 

$   3)1 5 
 )
 3

1.)15 ) /

*

92 

 Ay Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No