Prospectus As The Instructions Issued Have The Force Of Law

Prospectus As The Instructions Issued Have The Force Of Law

 

Randeep Kaur v. The State of Punjab and Ors., I. L. R. (1985) 1 Pb. & Hry. 343. a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the value of a Prospectus issued for admission to an entrance examination. It was held that the eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the entrance ‘examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus as the instructions issued have the force of law. We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench. Since the Prospectus issued for admission to the 1992-93 course in the medical college has the force of law and the students appeared in the examination on the basis of the instructions laid down in the said Prospectus, it was not open to the State Government to issue contrary instructions and as such also the Notification dated July 13, 1992 issued by the State Government is invalid in law.

 M. Kingston Vijay Asir vs. Medical Council of India & Ors., W.P.(c) 9841/2015 (High Court of Madras) wherein it has been held as under:-

“7. Admittedly, at the time of first phase of counseling, the condition imposed was that “option once exercised during the counseling cannot be changed later” and the petitioner has exercised his option to join M.D. (Radio Diagnosis), however, on account of alternations/amendments made during second and third phase of counseling to the effect namely, “allotment and re- allotment will be conducted and candidates can opt for change of course and change of college”, candidates who have already exercised their option to other subjects in the Post Graduate courses, started exercising their option and the result being, once again recounseling has to be done in respect of the seat vacated by students who have joined in other Post Graduate courses. In the considered opinion of the Court, amendment/alteration of the conditions during second and third phase of counseling is unsustainable in the light of the pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decisions.’’

 

Amardeep Singh Sahota vs The State Of Punjab Etc. on 20 May, 1993

Equivalent citations: (1993) 104 PLR 212

 

‘’22. It may at this stage further be stated that the Notification dated July 13, 1992 goes contrary to the policy which was laid down for admission in the Notification dated May 20, 1992 on the basis of which the Prospectus had been issued to the students and the students appeared for test on the basis of the policy laid down in the prospectus. The Prospectus cannot subsequently be changed by the State Government to the detriment of the students to benefit certain other students. In Randeep Kaur v. The State of Punjab and Ors., I. L. R. (1985) 1 Pb. & Hry. 343. a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the value of a Prospectus issued for admission to an entrance examination. It was held that the eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the entrance ‘examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus as the instructions issued have the force of law. We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench. Since the Prospectus issued for admission to the 1992-93 course in the medical college has the force of law and the students appeared in the examination on the basis of the instructions laid down in the said Prospectus, it was not open to the State Government to issue contrary instructions and as such also the Notification dated July 13, 1992 issued by the State Government is invalid in law.’’

 

In Parmender Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others [MANU/SC/1336/2011: (2012) 1 SCC 177], 

“26. From the facts as disclosed, the only question which emerges for decision in these appeals is whether the State Government had any jurisdiction and/or authority to alter the conditions relating to admission in the postgraduate or diploma courses in the different disciplines in medicine which had earlier been indicated in the Prospectus, once the examination for such admission had been conducted and the results had been declared and a select list had also been prepared on the basis thereof. In other words, once the process of selection had started on the basis of the terms and conditions included in the Prospectus, was it within the competence of the State Government to effect changes in the criterion relating to eligibility for admission, when not only had the process in terms of the Prospectus been started, but also when counseling was to be held on the very next day, which had the effect of eliminating many of the candidates from getting an opportunity of pursuing the postgraduate or diploma courses in the reserved HCMS category.

 

Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab [MANU/PH/0491/1993: (1993) 4 SLR 673 (P&H)], which, in fact, did not doubt the competency or authority of the Government to stipulate procedure for admission relating to courses in professional colleges, particularly, in respect of reserved category of seats. This Court also observed that (Rajiv Kapoor case, SCC p. 120, para 10) ultimately the Full Bench had directed in the case decided by it “that selections for admission [should] be finalised in the light of the criteria specified in the government orders already in force and the prospectus, after ignoring the offending notification introducing a change at a later stage”

Sri Guru Ram Das Charitable Hospital Trust & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2004) ILR 1, Punjab and Haryana 152 wherein it has held as under:-

“40. The NRI seats have been consistently available since 1993. The NRI students have been consistently told that separate quota for such students exists in the Colleges in the State of Punjab. In fact such reservation exists in Colleges throughout India. For this year also, the candidates have travelled from abroad, from countries as far as U.S.A. They had also made payments in foreign exchange as required under the Prospectus. They had obtained the necessary eligibility certificates from the Baba Farid University, Faridkot. Their counseling took place on 27.07.2003. We are of the considered opinion that in these circumstances it was impermissible for the respondents to modify the original notification dated 14.05.2003, by deleting the NRI quota. Learned counsel for the petitioner have rightly argued that the admissions for the academic Sessions 2003-2004 have to be governed by the notification dated 14.05.2003. The Common Entrance Test has been held on the basis of the Prospectus issued by the Baba Farid University, on the basis of the notification dated 14.05.2003. After the test had been held and the result had been declared and the petitioners had been given the eligibility certificate by the Baba Farid University, it was too late in the day for the respondents to effect a change in the notification date 14.05.2003, which is the basis of the Prospectus issued by the Baba Farid University, Faridkot, which was made available to the students with effect from 26.05.2003.

 

Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs. Sanjay Gulati. AIR 1983 SC 560 has clearly laid down that the Prospectus is binding on all persons concerned and following the same, a Division Bench of this Court has also observed in Rathnaswamy, Dr.A. vs. Director of Medical Education, (1986) ELR 207 that the rules and norms of the Prospectus are to be strictly and solemnly adhered to. The same principle is reiterated in the case of Dr.M.Ashiq Nihamathullah vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2005) WLR 697. It is not permissible for the Court to make any modification and/or relaxation in the conditions stipulated by the Prospectus. Further, granting of any relief in this petition would mean that the post in question will have to be kept vacant for another six months or one year causing serious prejudice to the general public.”

Ms. Akanksha Dokania vs. Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology & Ors., WP(C) 5205/2010 decided on 28th October, 2010 wherein this Court has held as under:-

“9. As far as language in the prospectus on the basis whereof notice was issued is concerned, on closer examination, it is found that the language is for admission for the 85% seats of the Delhi region as well as 15% seats for outside Delhi region. The said language cannot derogate the principle of law that those seeking admission in the Delhi region seats are required to produce the OBC Certificate from authorities in Delhi region only.”

 

in Parmender Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (2012) 1 SCC 177 had an occasion to deal with a similar clause of “as applicable from time to time”. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that once the results had been declared and a select list had been prepared, it was not open to the State Government to alter the terms and conditions just a day before counselling was to begin, so as to deny the candidates who had already been selected for the aforesaid courses. It was held that rules cannot be changed once the selection process had begun. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“6. What is of importance is the method of selection and admission which was made a part of the Prospectus, wherein, in Clause 6 relating to determination of merit, in sub-clause (iii), it was indicated as follows:

“6. (iii) The conditions for NOCs fixed by the Government of Haryana vide Letter No. 2/123/05/I-HB-I dated 5-12-2008 for HCMS doctors who want to join PG courses are given at Annexure D. (However, latest government instructions issued from time to time will be followed.)”

 

15. Mr Ahmed submitted that one could possibly have accepted the change in the criterion for admission, if it had been made before the prospectus was acted upon, but once the prospectus was acted upon, the entire process of admission to the postgraduate or diploma courses would be governed by the said prospectus and any change and/or alteration of the conditions of the prospectus thereafter, would seriously prejudice the candidates who had already been selected.

26. From the facts as disclosed, the only question which emerges for decision in these appeals is whether the State Government had any jurisdiction and/or authority to alter the conditions relating to admission in the postgraduate or diploma courses in the different disciplines in medicine which had earlier been indicated in the Prospectus, once the examination for such admission had been conducted and the results had been declared and a select list had also been prepared on the basis thereof. In other words, once the process of selection had started on the basis of the terms and conditions included in the Prospectus, was it within the competence of the State Government to effect changes in the criterion relating to eligibility for admission, when not only had the process in terms of the Prospectus been started, but also when counselling was to be held on the very next day, which had the effect of eliminating many of the candidates from getting an opportunity of pursuing the postgraduate or diploma courses in the reservedHCMS category.

29. As has also been pointed out hereinbefore, this Court in Rajiv Kapoor case took notice of the fact that the Full Bench, on whose decision the High Court had relied, ultimately directed that the selections for admission should be finalised in the light of the criteria specified in the government orders already in force and the prospectus, “after ignoring the offending notification introducing a change at a later stage”.

(emphasis supplied) In fact, this is what has been contended on behalf of the appellants that once the process of selection of candidates for admission to the postgraduate and diploma courses had been commenced on the basis of the prospectus, no change could, thereafter, be effected by government orders to alter the provisions contained in the prospectus. If such government orders were already in force when the prospectus was published, they would certainly have a bearing on the admission process, but once the results had been declared and a select list had been prepared, it was not open to the State Government to alter the terms and conditions just a day before counselling was to begin, so as to deny the candidates, who had already been selected, an opportunity of admission in the aforesaid courses.

 In Indu Gupta v. Director Sports, Punjab and Anr., AIR 1999 P&H; 319 (FB), the Full Bench in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has expressed thus:

“9. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University, (1994) 4 Recent Services Judgments, 289 disapproved the liberal construction of the terms and conditions of the brochure and specified the need for their strict adherence to avoid unnecessary prejudice to the candidate or the authority during the course of admission. The bench approved that the eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the entrance test examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of the instructions given in the prospectus having the force of law. While disapproving the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhvika Khurana (minor) v. M. D. University Civil Writ Petition No. 15367 of 1991, where contrary view had been taken, the Full Bench observed that the students seeking admission to the professional colleges are even otherwise matured enough and supposed to understand the full implication of filling the admission form and compliance with the instructions contained in the brochure.

 In Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University, 1994 (4) R.S.J. 289 another Full Bench of this Court took the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that suits him at a given time. The Full Bench approved the view expressed in earlier Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, having the force of law.

Sachin Gaur v. Punjab University, (Full bench) 1996 (1) RSJ 1: (AIR 1996 Punj. & Har. 109) took the view that there has to be a cut off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed afterwards. These views expressed by earlier Full Benches have been followed in CWP No. 6756 of 1996 by the three of us constituting another Full Bench. Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever a notification calling for applications, fixes date and time within which applications are to be received whether sent through post or by any other mode that time schedule has to be complied with in letter and spirit. If the application has not reached the co- ordinator or the competent authority as the case may be the same cannot be considered as having been filed in terms of the provisions contained in the prospectus or Information Brochure.

In LPA No.611/2010 (Tej Pal Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 29.11.2010) while dealing with a similar situation wherein a meritorious candidate was not given admission due to the fault of the authorities has held as follows:

“21. In Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati, AIR 1983 SC 580, the Apex Court has categorically held that the authority which makes admission by ignoring the rules of admission must pay for its own lapse and wrong caused and injustice meted to the deserving candidates. In the said case, their Lordships directed for increase of strength as a course of solution. It is worth noting that in the said  case, a contention was propounded that the Medical Council of India would not sanction additional seats but the said proponement was repelled. We think it apt to reproduce the relevant paragraph from the said decision:

“It is strange that in all such cases, the authorities who make admissions by ignoring the rules of admission contend that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased, since the State Government cannot meet the additional expenditure which will be caused by increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope up with the additional influx of students. An additional plea available in regard to medical colleges is that the Indian Medical Council will not sanction additional seats. We cannot entertain this submission.

Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified. The best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admission made.”

In Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of UP, (1995) 5 SCC 173, the Apex Court, after coming to hold that there were errors in the rule of reservation and its implementation, dwelled upon the relief to be granted when the admissions had already been finalized. In that context, their Lordships held thus:

“At the same time, we have to rectify the injustice done to the open competition candidates in the admissions in question, to the extent feasible. Accordingly, we direct that in the matter of admissions made pursuant to C.P.M.T. 1994, while the admissions already finalised shall not be disturbed, the Uttar Pradesh Government shall create thirty-four additional seats in the M.B.B.S. course and admit thirty-four students from the O.C. category against those seats. If any seats are vacant as on today, they shall also be filled from the O.C. category alone.”