RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

                                              Reena Jain

                                                  Vs.

                           Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Udaipur

                         Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 2330 and 2331 of 2001
                                         (S.K. Keshote, J.)

                                             30.08.2001

                                          JUDGEMENT

S.K. Keshote, J.
1. The petitioner passed her B.Sc. Examination in the year 1999 with second division.
From the marksheet of this examination which is Annexure-1 at page No.17 of the
petition, she has opted for the subjects Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Pre-Teacher
Education Test 2000 (hereinafter referred as the PTET) was conducted by respondent
No.1 for admitting the candidates in various colleges through out the State in the
B.Ed. course. The petitioner filed her application form to the respondent No.1. In the
application formas per the petitioner's own case it is mentioned that she belongs to
Science Faculty. In column No.9 of the application the petitioner mentioned three
teaching subjects as Biology, General Science and Home Science. It is admitted case
of the petitioner that in the 9th column of the application at serial No.3 thereof, the
petitioner mentioned Home Science as one of the teaching subjects. As regards the
preference for the colleges, the petitioner gave same as under :-

       (i) Kota Girls College
       (ii) Rajasthan Womens Teachers Training College, Udaipur.
       (iii) Lal Bahadur Shastri Mahila Shikshan Prashikshan Mahavidhyalya, Jaipur.

2. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the PTET examination. She was declared
successful and allotted college viz. Rajasthan Women's Teachers Training College,
Udaipur. She approached Rajasthan Women's Teachers Training College, Udaipur on
22-12-2000. During the process of her admission in the college, she has been pointed
out that teaching subject Home Science has wrongly been given to her as she belongs
to Science Faculty. The Principaldirected the petitioner to get the subject corrected
from PTET office.
The petitioner approached the PTET office, met there with Shri M.L. Vyas who told
her that the information regarding the admission and correction of subject would be
given tothe petitioner later on after making necessary correction. In this process what
has been given out to her that allotment of college to her may also be changed. On or
before 12-1-2001 the petitioner received a call letter from respondent No.1 informing
her that she has been granted admission in Shri Agresen Post Graduate College,
Jamdoli, Jaipur and she has to take the admission after depositing fees etc. on or
before 23-1-2001. The petitioner in pursuance of letter aforesaid received from
respondent No.1, approached respondent No.2 and she was given admission to B.Ed.
course. The petitioner after her admission to the respondent No.2 College is regularly
attending the classes and she has almost undergone half of the course by now as the
duration of B.Ed. course is of one year.

3. It is grievanced that to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, a letter dated2-
5-2001 has been issued by respondent No.2 informing her that admission to B.Ed.
course has been cancelled by respondent No.1 under its order/letter dated 28-4-2001.
It is submitted that the petitioner has not been supplied the copy of the letter/order
dated 28-4-2001 of respondent No.1.

4. It is really shocking that the petitioner has not received as per her own case the
copy of order/letter dated 28-4-2001 of respondent No.1 but she has given and stated
the contents thereof in the petition. That way of the dealing the matter by the
petitioner who aproaches this Court for seeking relief under its extraordinary
jurisdiction is difficult to appreciate. This conduct of the petitioner goes to show that
she tried to make attempt not to disclose all the material and relevant facts relating to
this document to the Court. Be that as it may afterthe letter dated 2-5-2001 the
petitioner met the Principal of the college, respondent No.2, and requested him not to
cancel her admission till she approaches respondent No.1 and clarifiesthe details. She
also stated to have demanded copies of certain documents. She has been informed by
respondent No.2 that entire recordrelated to her admission to B.Ed. course has been
handed over/sent back to the office of respondent No.1 in compliance of its order/
letter dated 28-4-2001.
5. This petition is presented by the petitioner in the Court on 15-5-2001. It was placed
for preliminary hearing on Board on 18-5-2001. It was admitted and notices were
issued to respondents. On stay application, the Court has been pleased to issue the
notices to respondents and in the meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 2-5-
2001, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No.2 ordered to be kept in
abeyance till further orders. The respondents were further restrained to interfere with
the prosecution of the studies by the petitioner in B.Ed. course in Shri Agresen Post
Graduate College, Keshav Vidhyapith, Jamdoli, Jaipur.

6. On 9-8-2001, the ex-parte interim stay order granted earlier by this Court has been
made absolute and the matter was placed for final hearing.

7. Respondent No.1 has filed the reply to the petition on 6-7-2001 to which the
petitioner has not filed any rejoinder. This position has also not been disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. In the reply to the petition, respondent No.1 has come up with the case that the
petitioner has mentioned Home Science as one of the combination of teaching subjects
which is available only to the candidates belonging tofaculty of Arts as per the
instructions mentionedin the admission form. It is submitted that thenomination of the
petitioner at Rajasthan Women's Teachers Training College, Udaipur was apparently a
mistake committed and rightly she was not admitted by the college and asked her to
get correction of her teaching subject. In view of these facts it is stated that the case of
the petitioner was wrongly considered for admission in the faculty of Articles This
mistakehas been committed as petitioner has mentioned Home Science as a teaching
subject with the faculty of Science (Bio). Home Science could have been opted by the
candidates from Artsfaculty. For District Baran from the faculty of Science she could
not get admission in B.Ed. course as she does not stand in the merit. In the Baran
District in faculty of Science the cut off point was at 428 marks and the petitioner has
secured 352 marks only. But due to the mistake of the computer as what is stated by
respondent No.1 on process of finalisation of the admission on account of wrong
feeding of the subject Home Science in the faculty of Science, she has been admitted
to the respondent No.2 College. It is urged that on detection of this mistake, the
admission of the petitioner has been cancelled. It is not in fact a cancellation of the
admission of the petitioner but it is stated to be a case of the rectification of the
mistake which is not only a prerogative and right of respondent No.1but a pious duty
also. It is reiterated that because of wrong mentioning of subject Home Science with
faculty of Science admission has wrongly been given to the petitioner. As per the
instructions mentioned on the back of the admission form, it is not permissible for a
candidate of Science faculty to have opted for combination subject home Science.
This subject is available in Arts faculty. In column No.8 of the form, subjects Zoology,
Botany and Chemistry are mentioned which have been taught to her in the graduation
and she was at liberty to opt the teaching subjects Biology (Zoology + Botany),
Chemistry or General Science but not the Home Science which she never studied in
B.Sc.

9. In the reply to the petition it is stated by respondent No.1 that the admission to
B.Ed.course has been closed on 28-4-2001. It is urgedthat it will not be in the interest
of justice tocontinue her in the B.Ed. course to which admission was got on the basis
of wrong information and with illegal means.

10. SB Civil Writ Petition No.2331/2001
The facts of this case are identical to the case of the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.2330/2001 except in that case Home Science was mentioned as teaching
subject and in this case Hindi was mentioned. So the detailed facts of this case need
not be given.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order/letter dated 2-5-2001
cancelling the admission of the petitioners is wholly illegal, arbitrary and a grave
abuse of powers conferred on the respondent No.2 as beforepassing of this order /letter
the petitioners have not been given any show cause notice nor any opportunity of
hearing to make the representation. It is urged that otherwise also this action is bad for
the reason that the copy of the basic order dated 28-4-2001 has not been given to the
petitioners. It is submitted that whatever the mistake committed by the petitioners in
filling up the form it has been rectified and they have been given admission
accordingly in Science faculty and there would not have been anyoccasion for
respondent No.1 to cancel their admission and that too in violation of the principles of
natural justice. It is contended that there are candidates belonging to the Science
faculty who secured lesser marks than the petitioners and they have been granted
admission to the different colleges in State and this action of the respondents
cancelling their admission is wholly arbitrary and unjustified.
12. It has next been submitted that as per the admission rules, 20% seats are required
to be filled in on the basis of overall merits. The candidates securing lesser marks are
continuing in the different colleges. It is incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to
continue the petitioners as against those seats which are required to be filled in on the
basis of overall merits of the candidates. Lastly it is urged that the petitioners have
already undergone and completed half of the B.Ed. course and thus it is highly
inequitable and inappropriate on the part of respondent No.1 to ask them to go home.
The petitioners also invested a huge amount while continuing their studies in B.Ed.
course in the college. Mere return of admission fees etc. will not save the valuable one
year of the petitioners and will not recover the irreparable injury to which they will be
subjected. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed
reliance on the following decisions :-

       (1)Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karanataka University, 1
       (2)A. Sudha v. University of Mysore, 2
       (3)Shrawan Kumar v. Director General of Health Services, 3
       (4)Randhir Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 4and
       (5)Smt. Reeta Sharma v. University of Raj 5

13. Mr. Katta, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a case where the
petitioners though were much lower in the merits of the faculty of Science of women
of the Baran district were prepared for giving admission to B.Ed. course still, because
of the mistake committed by the computer they got admission. In case the petitioners
are protected by this Court, it will result in perpetuating illegality. It has next been
contended that as it is a case of mistake of computer, the petitioners cannot be given
any benefit merely because they approached the Court. As the petitions have been
admitted and interim relief is granted in their favour and in pursuance thereof they are
continuing at College. It is submitted that against the admission of these candidates
from the merit list of the faculty of Science (women) of Baran district, the grievance
has been made by the candidates who stand at higher number in the merits and one of
the candidate has also filed the petition in this Court. This Court has disposed of that
petition by giving direction to respondent No.1 to examine the matter and in case any
candidate lower in the merit than the petitioner therein in the Baran district of faculty
of Science is given the admission in B.Ed. course appropriate decision be taken. He
submitted that after receipt of the representation of the candidates who stand at higher
merit than the petitioner and after decision of this Court in the case of one of the
candidates the matter has been examined and on examination thereof this computer
mistake committed in giving the admission to the petitioner was noticed and
accordingly their admissions were cancelled. It is urged that the candidate who filed
writ petition before this Court also could not get admission as many candidates
standing at higher merits than her were not given the admissions. In reply to the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding violation of the
principlesof natural justice against the order dated 28-4-2001 of the respondent No.1
and that of the respondent No.2 dated 2-5-2001, it is contended that it is a case of
correction of the mistakecommitted by the computer in giving the admission to the
petitioners and before cancellation their admission the principles of natural justice
were not required to be complied with. In reply to the last contention raised by the
learned counselfor the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
in case only on the ground of this admission given by mistake, if the petitioners are
protected, it will result in prepetuating illegality and at the cost of many candidates
who stand at much higher number in the merit list of women for the district Baran of
the Science faculty prepared for giving admission toB.Ed. course.

14. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners the copies of the following
documents are taken on record :-

       1.Zerox copy of the order dated 28-4-2001 of respondent No.1.
       2.Copy of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1686/2001.
       3.Copy of letter dated 24-4-2001 written to Ritu Singh.
       4.Copy of representation of Ritu Singh dated 24-4-2001.
       5.Copy of the order of this Court dated 13-4-2001 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
       No.1686/2001.
       6.Copy of the representation of Ritu Singh dated 19-1-2001.
       7.The district-wise merit list of Science of district Baran of women candidates.

15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, perused the writ petition, its enclosures, reply to the
writ petition, its enclosures and the copies of documents which have been taken on
record with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not raise any dispute on the following
facts:-
       (1)That the petitioner Reena Jain in Writ Petition No.2330/2001 in her
       admission form of the PTET has mentioned Home Science as one of the
       teaching subjects.
       (2)Reena Jain was not having the subject Home Science in her three years
       degree course (Science). She has subjects Chemistry, Botany and Zoology in
       the three years degree course (Science) which she passed from Maharshi
       Dayanand Sarawati University, Ajmer. she was nominated for admission on the
       basis of treating her to be graduate in Arts faculty in the B.Ed. course at
       Rajasthan Women's Teachers Training College, Udaipur by mistake.
       (3)This nomination was not given effect to by the Principal of that college as
       she was not eligible for the admission and this position is admitted by the
       petitioner.
       (4)In the district-wise merit list of women candidates in the Science faculty of
       Baran District the name of the petitioner Reena Jain stands at No.28. she
       obtained 352 marks in the PTET examination. The last candidate in the Science
       faculty from women merit list of Baran District given admission is at serial
       No.5 and she got 428 marks in the PTET examination. So, the candidates at
       serial Nos.6 to 27in the merit list of women aforestated were not given the
       admission as they got marks in PTET examination less than 428.

17. So far as petitioner Pinky Jain in Writ Petition No.2331/2001 is concerned, the
other facts are almost identical except that in the admission form of PTET she has
mentioned subject Hindi which she has not studied in her three years degree course. In
the district-wise women merit list of Baran her name stands at serial No.9. She got
415 marks in the PTET examination. The candidates at serial No.6, 7 and 8 were
higher in the merit but they could not get the admission.

18. The petitioners have not disputed the fact that the admissions to the B.Ed. course
in pursuance to the PTET were closed on 28-4-2001. The petitioners were admitted to
the course on 23-1-2001 in the respondent No.2 college.

19. First of all I consider and deal with the point whether it is a case of bonafide
mistake on the part of these petitioners to mention the subjects in the case of first
petitioner Reena Jain Home Science in the form filled in by her for PTET and Hindi
by second petitioner in the examination form for the said examination or it is a
deliberate act on their part to get the admission to B.Ed. course. It is not the case of
the petitioners that these forms were not filled in by the petitioners themselves. In
view of this undisputed fact, it is to be taken that these forms were filled in by the
petitioners themselves.

20. The original record of these matters is brought by the counsel for the petitioners
for the perusal of the Court. I have gone through the original application form filled in
by these two petitioners for PTET. Having gone through these admission forms I am
satisfied that these are filled in by the petitioners themselves.

21. The petitioners have passed the three years degree course examination in Science
faculty and it is difficult to believe not to say to accept that they will commit the
mistake in mentioning the subjects which they were never taught and studied in that
course. This is also not believable for another reason that the petitioners have
mentioned their subjects which they were taught and read in the three years degree
course in column No.8 of the application form. In column No.8 of the application
form, theyhave mentioned the optional subjects as well as the compulsory subjects. In
column No.9 of the application form they have to disclose the minimum two teaching
subjects out of the subjects which they have been taught and studied in the three years
degree course examination. It is not in dispute between the learned counsel for the
parties that for the students of the Science faculty the General Science can be taken to
be a teaching subject for the B.Ed. course. Having gone through the contents of the
columns 8 and 9 coupled with the fact that the petitioners were knowing very well
what subject they were taught and studied in three years degree course it is difficult to
believe not to say to accept that by mistake they have mentioned in the first case
Home Science and in second case Hindi as their teaching subjects. In the facts of this
case coupled with the facts that the petitioners were very well knowing of the subjects
which they were taught and studied in the three years degree course, the mark sheets
were known by them of the three years degree course, the forms were filled in by
themselves and they know that minimum two subjects from their optional subjects are
to be opted as teaching subjects in B.Ed. course, they know also that as perthe rules of
admission to the B.Ed. course a candidate can opt for a subject as her/ his teaching
subject which she /he studied in three years degree course for at least two years, it is
difficult to accept it to be a case of bonafide mistake of the petitioners in mentioning
Home Science and Hindi respectivelyas one of their teaching subjects. It is a clear
case of attempt made by the petitioners to getthe admission where they failed to stand
in merit in the Science faculty, in the Arts faculty. It is a case where the petitioners
have cleverly and smartly acted. In case this class of the candidates who act cleverly
and smartly for getting the admission to B.Ed. courses are permitted to enter this noble
profession of teaching to the students who will be future President, Prime, Minister,
Minister, IAS, IPS or allied services officers at the State level or Central level or the
Doctors, engineers and other professionals what will be the fate of the country. At this
initial stage of their career, the petitioners have made attempt to mainpulate
theiradmissions to B.Ed. course if ultimately they are permitted to enter in the
profession of teaching it will not be in the larger interest of the society.

22. As a result of the aforesaid discussion I do not agree that mentioning of these two
subjects Home Science in the first case and Hindi in the second case as one of the
teaching subjects in the application forms by the petitioners is a bonafide mistake. It is
to be stated at the cost of repetition that it was a deliberate act of the petitioners with
the clear object and purpose to get the admission to the B.Ed. course by any means.

23. Now I have to deal with the case of the respondents that the admission of these
two petitioners to the respondent No.2 College, were as a result of the computer
mistake. I do not agree with this defence of respondent No.1 and the contention raised
by its counsel that by computer mistake these two petitioners were given the
admission in the Science faculty of the B.Ed. course in the respondent No.2 College.

24. Computer is based on science. In the matter where the computer committed a
mistake a mere word from the mouth of respondent No.1 is not sufficient. It has to be
illustrated by the expert how this is a mistake of the computer. In the reply to the writ
petition though a statement has been made that it is as a result of computermistake
these two petitioners have got the admission but the scientifically or
otherwiseillustrating datas are not given nor any reason or ground has been given in
support thereof. In the absence of all these necessary details, datas, grounds and
explanation for this alleged computer mistake it cannot be accepted only on the basis
of a word of mouth. Shri R.K. Sharma who swore this affidavit in support of the reply
to the petition has not a computer expert as he is not claimed himself to be an expert in
the computer. This is a matter where an expert opinion or explanation in the reply to
the petition is necessary and only on the satisfcation of the Court it can be taken to be
a case of computer mistake, but not only on a word of mouth which is not supported
by any scientific datas, explanation and expert opinion. This is a case where
respondent No.1 only to save and protect the possible connivance of its officers in
securing of the admission of the petitioners at respondent No.2 College, this defence
has been taken. In the era of computer science thisdefence taken in the form and
manner without providing necessary data, grounds andexplanation or expert opinion, it
cannot be accepted. When this has not been done which should have been done by the
respondent No.1, this defence taken by it cannot be accepted. Next question which
falls for the considerationof the Court is how the admissions were given tothe
petitioners. It appears to be case of a gift to them in the B.Ed. course and that too at
the cost of many meritorious candidates thanthem.

25. Before proceeding, considering and giving decision on this aspect of the matter
here I consider it to be appropriate to make referenceto the merit list prepared of the
women candidates of Science faculty for district Baran. This merit list is prepared by
the computer and having a glance thereon I do not find any mistake therein. The
names of the candidates have been arranged strictly in the order of the marks they
secured in PTET. When this list has been prepared strictly in the order of the
marksobtained by these candidates in the PTET how it can be said to be a case of
computer mistakein giving the admission to these two petitioners in B.Ed. course in
respondent No.2 College. This list has been produced by respondent No.1 itself on the
record. The learned counsel for the petitioners or the respondent No.1 or officer-in-
charge of the case has failed to show where the mistake is there in this merit list. It is
understandable where the names of the petitionershave been mentioned above the
serial No.4 and they got the admission.But that is not the case here. Their names are
arranged in this merit list strictly in the order of marks secured in PTET. So what is
alleged and urged by the respondent No.1 is nothing but only a pretext or a defence for
the sake of defence.

26. I do not find anything on the record of the petitions nor anything has been shown
from the record of the case by the counsel forrespondent No.1 that prior to filing of the
replyto this petition at any stage it is found to be a case of computer mistake in giving
the admissionto these two petitioners in B.Ed. course at respondent No.2 College. In
this respect the first reference we may have to the application filed by Ritu Singh, Roll
No.211257 dated 19-1-2001 to the Controller of PTET Examination 2000. In this
application the grievance made against the admission of Reena Jain was not replied by
respondent No.1. She was not replied that it was a case of computer mistake and it has
to be corrected. Copy of the writ petition filed by Ritu Singh in this Court is produced
on the record but the respondent No.1 has not filed the copy of the reply filed by it to
this petition and to show and refer any other material that therein this defence has
been taken that by computer mistake the admission was given to Reena Jain.

27. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondent No.1 on 6-7-2001 that is
much after the decision of this Court in Ritu Singh's petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 1686 /2001) dated 13-4-2001. In this reply, respondent No.1 has not stated that
Ritu Singh's case was decidedby this Court after notice to it or not. From the order of
the Court dated 13-4-2001. In Ritu Singh's petition prima facie it appears that this
petition was disposed of without notice to respondent No.1. Whatever it may be
whether the decision was given after notice or without notice to respondent No.1 but
the fact remains that the reply to the application filed by Ritu Singh was not given to
let her know that Reena Jain was given admission due to computer mistake. In case it
would have been the case of computer mistake what it is now pleaded, alleged and
projected by respondent No.1 on receipt of the first application of Ritu Singh the
mistake should have been corrected accordingly and not only the reply to the
application should have been given but the admission of this petitioner should have
been cancelled.

28. The next document is the application of Ritu Singh filed by her on 24-4-2001. In
the reply to this application dated 24-4-2001 it is not the case of respondent No.1 that
this was a case of computer mistake. In the facts of the case this defence raised, taken
and advancedduring the course of argument by the respondentNo.1 that the admission
given to the petitioners in the B.Ed. course in science faculty is as a result of the
computer mistake is difficult toaccept. It is to be stated at the cost of repetition that no
material whatsoever has been produced by respondent No.1 with the reply to the
petition to show and establish that it is a case of computer mistake. It is not a simple
matterwhich by word of mouth can be stated and the Court has to accept it to be a case
of computer mistake. This is totally scientific matter andit would not have been
difficult for respondent No.1 where it would have been really a case of computer
mistake to illustrate the same by giving the necessary scientific data and details. In
view of these facts and discussions made above, this plea taken by respondent No.1
regarding the admission of these two petitioners to B.Ed. course though they stand at
much lower number in the merit list due to the computer mistake is not acceptable and
it cannot be accepted.
29. Now I may revert to the contentionsraised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners.

30. Regarding first contention- the order /letterdated 2-5-2001 is illegal, arbitrary and
abuse of the powers conferred on the authorities as it has been made in violation of the
principles of natural justice.

31. It is not in dispute that the order / letter dated 2-5-2001 of the Principal of the
College respondent No.2 has been made without anotice and opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners. From this order /letter I find that the Principal of the College
respondent No.2 didnothing in this matter. Undisputedly he was not a competent
authority or the officer to cancelthe admission of the petitioners tothe B.Ed. courses.
This power undisputedly vests withrespondents No.1 The order/letter dated 2-5-2001
is nothing but only a communication ofthe order/letter dated 28-4-2001 of respondent
No.1 under which the petitioners' admission to the B.Ed. courses have been cancelled.
In view of the fact the letter/order dated 2-5-2001 cannot be taken to be a substantive
order, itis only a communication of the order/letter of the competent authority to the
petitioners. In view of these facts I do not agree that the Principalof the College
respondent No.2 has to follow the principles of natural justice before passing
order/letter dated 2-5-2001 to the petitioners. The challenge made by the petitioners to
the order/letter dated 2-5-2001 of the Principal of respondent No.2 on the ground that
it is made in violation of the principles of natural justice is not tenable. The Principal
of the respondent No.2 College was only a communicatingauthority of the order/letter
dated 28-4-2001 of the the cancellation of the admission of the petitioners to the B.Ed.
courses.

32. Be that as it may, it is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 has not given a
notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before he has taken the decision to
cancel the admissions of the petitioners to the B.Ed. courses. During the course of
arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the contention that the order
dated 28-4-2001 has been passed in violation of the principles ofnatural justice.
Another contention is also raised that the order dated 28-4-2001 is bad as the copy of
the same has not been given to the petitioners. I find sufficient merit in the contention
of learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the order date 28-4-2001 is to be
furnished to the petitioners but merely on non-furnishing of the copy of this order I do
not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that it vitatesthe
facts of the case. An order which adversely affects, evenif it is an administrative, the
civil right of the citizens or ensues civil consequences, the copyof the same is to be
given to the concerned person. It is a case of the cancellation of the admission of the
petitioners to the B.Ed.courses and ordinarily copy of this order shouldhave been sent
to the petitioners by respondent No.1 or it should have been sent/communicated tothe
petitioners by respondent No.2 along with it this order/letter dated 2-5-2001. The order
dated 28-4-2001 adversely affects the civilrights of the petitioners or ensues civil
consequences as thereunder the admission of the petitioners to the B.Ed. courses has
been cancelled. In ordinary course before making this order, respondent No.1 should
have adhered to the principles of natural justice that is to say that the petitioners
should have been given a noticeand the opportunity of hearing. It is not a simple order
which does not affect the petitioners adversely. It is a very serious matter pertaining to
the cancellation of admission of the petitioners to the B.Ed courses and it is expected
from respondent No.1 to pass the same only after giving a notice and opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners. But whether only on this ground any relief can be given to
the petitioners in facts of the case in the present matter is the next question that needs
to be examined by the Court.

33. In the case in hand it is not in dispute that as per the merits number of the
petitioners in the merit list of women candidates of science stream of district Baran,
the petitioners could not have been admitted to the B.Ed. courses. Learned counsel for
the petitioners was also in agreement that on merits, the petitioners have no case
because as per the merit list they have no chance of the admission in the B.Ed.
courses. However, what the learned counsel for the petitioners contended is that it is a
case where the petitioners have been given admission and half ofthe course has been
completed they may be allowed tocontinue and complete the same. So in fact and
substance it is a mercy appeal which the petitioners are making to the Court.

34. In the case of K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, 6 their Lordships of the Supreme
Court laid down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but be facto
prejudice had to be proved. Their Lordships observed as under (Para 31 of AIR) :--

       It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of
       naturaljustice are to apply, nor as to their scope and extent..........There must
       also have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as
       a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural
       circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the
       tribunal is acting,the subject-matter to be dealt with so on and so forth".

35. In case of State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma 7 the principle of prejudice" has
been further elaborated. The same principles have been reiterated by their Lordships
of the Supreme Court again in the case of Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P., 8

36. In case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, 9 their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid
down two exceptions to the general and expected rule of passing an order
adverselyaffecting the right or civil benefits or resulting in civil consequences is to be
made after adherenceto the principles of natural justice if on admitted or indisputable
facts only one conclusion is possible then in such a case in other words that the breach
of natural justice was itself prejudice would not apply. In other words no other
conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts it is not necessary to quash
the order which was passed inviolation of principles of natural justice.

37. The reference may be had to the latest pronouncement of their Lordships of the
Supreme Court in case of Aligarh Muslim university v. Mansoor Ali Khan 10 I cannot
do better than to quote here the relevant portion of the judgment which reads as under
:- (Para 24 of AIR)

       25. The useless formality" theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from
       the class of cases of admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one
       conclusion" referred to above, there has been considerable debate on the
       application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in
       regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C.
       Mehta (AIR 1999 SC 2583) referred to above. This Court surveyed the views
       expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce,
       Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J. and Straughton, L.J. etc. in various
       cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, de.
       Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in
       violation must always be quashed for otherwise the court will be prejudging the
       issue. Some others have said that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice
       must be shown. Yet, some other have applied via media rules. We do not think
       it necessary in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis,
       it may depend on the facts of a particular case."

38. In the case in hand on the admittedindisputable facts only one view is possible that
the admission given to the petitioners to the B.Ed. courses is illegal. In that event by
not giving the notice and opportunity of hearing, no prejudice can be said to have been
caused to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitionershas failed to show how
any prejudice is caused to the petitioners by not giving the noitce and opportunity of
hearing before passing the orderdated 28-4-2001. His only contention as said earlier is
that half of the course has been completed, the Court may continue the petitionersto
complete the course, no other prejudice hasbeen shown to have been caused. This is in
factnot a contention having legal sanction behind itbut a contention to seek the
indulgence and sympathy of Court in the matter. In the facts of this case where
admissions of the petitioners to the B.Ed. courses have been made in total disregard of
their merits, even if before cancelling the admission notice or opportunity of hearing is
not given to them, it wil not result in vitiating the order dated 28-4-2001. This matter
is squarely covered by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of
S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (AIR 1981 SC 136) (supra) on this point. So this contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any substance and merits.

39. Regarding second contention- that mistake earlier committed by the petitioners in
filling up their admission forms has been rectified and they have been given admission
accordingly to the science faculty and there would not have been any occasion for
cancellation of their admission.

40. This contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also devoid of
any substance and merits. It is a case where at the threshold at Rajasthan Women's
TeachersTraining College, Udaipur it is detected by the Principal of the College that
these two petitioners could not have been given admission in B.Ed. course in the
teaching faculty/subjects of arts. These two petitioners could not be given the
admission and rightly so and were directed to go for correction of subject etc. to the
respondent No.1. Leaving apart this question as well as whether it is bonafide mistake
or error or not in mentioning of the teaching subject in the admission form, the
petitioners could not have been given admission as per their merit number in list also
at respondent No.2 College. It is not a case where the petitioners though were having
merits and not given admission. It is not the case of the petitioners that any candidate
lower in the merit number than the petitioners has been given admission and they they
have been deprived admission. It is a clear case of giving the admission to these two
petitioners depriving of the same to number of the candidates who stand above them in
the merit list of the women candidates of district Baran.This contention has no
relevance whatsoever to the cancellation of the admission of the petitioners to the
B.Ed. courses. Correction what it is stated to be made of the mistake in filling the
forms by the petitioners does not mean nor it can be taken to give the admission to the
petitioners in teaching faculty of science/subject in the B.Ed. courses ignoring the
merits of those candidates who undisputedly are above the petitioners in the District
merit list.

41. The third contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
candidates belonging to teaching faculty science subject secured lesser marks than the
petitioners have been given admission to different colleges in the State and the
cancellation of the admission of the petitioners is arbitrary, unjustified is also equally
of no substance, worth and merits.

42. As per the scheme of the admission to the B.Ed. courses in the State 20% seats are
to be filled in on the basis of general merits and 80% are to be filled in on the basis of
district-wise merit list prepared. The petitioners were not given admission to the B.Ed.
courses in the respondent No.2 college on the basis of the general merits at the State
level. Thus it is of no substance, relevance and help to the petitioners that on the basis
of State merit list re-20% of the seats to be filled in any candidates less meritorious
than the petitioners has been given admission to the B.Ed. courses. Otherwise also this
is a vague, indefinite and bald statement made by the petitioners without giving
specific instances of any candidate who has been given admission though secured
marks less than the petitioners in PTET in any college in State against 20% of State
merit seats. In the matter of admission to the B.Ed. course, this type of the pleading
and allegations are hardly of any substance, worth and help to the petitioners. Unless
specific instances are cited or given in the writ petition and those persons have also
been impleaded as party to the petition no obligation is there on the Court to examine
this point nor any relief can be granted to the petitioners on the basis thereof.

43. Similarly is the case with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
regarding admission in the B.Ed. course on the basis of the district-wise merit list
prepared. Here also the petitioners have not given out the details of those candidates
though secured less marks than the petitioners in PTET but still got the admission. this
contention on the face of it is nothing but only a contention to mislead and misguide
the Court. If we go by the merit list prepared of the women candidates of teaching
faculty science/subject of the Baran district, it is a case where many candidates though
stand higher in merit list than these two petitioners have been deprived of the
admission to the B.Ed. courses. Looking to and examining this matter from this
aspect, the contention aforesaid raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not
correct on the fact of it.

44. Now I may advert to the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that they have already undergone and completed half of their course and it
will be highly inequitable and inappropriate if at this juncture they sent back are
home.

45. Though this contention on the face of it appears to be attractive one but if we go
by the substance it cannot be accepted nor any relief can be granted to the petitioners
on this basis in the case.

46. The admission to the B.Ed. coursesthroughout the State in the colleges are made
as per the admission rules strictly on the basis of the merits of the candidates which
they secured in the PTET, so these admissions are to be made only on merits of
candidates that is to say that the merit is the only consideration for admission to the
B.Ed. courses in the State at different colleges. For the assessment of the this merit the
State is not dependent on the performance of the candidates in the Graduation
examination in different faculties held by the different Universities. To fulfil this
object and purpose of securing best meritorious candidates for the B.Ed. course the
system is introduced to hold Pre-Teachers Education Test. Where the merit is the only
criteria and consideration for the admission to B.Ed. course any consideration other
than the merit is given effect to and that too only on the ground that the petitioners
though could not have been given admission to B.Ed. course they got the admission
and completed half of the course it will be against the basic concept and principle of
the meritadmission to this course and further will render it nugatory and ineffective.
Secondly in case onthis consideration any relief is granted to the petitioners in these
petitions by the Court who though could not have got the admission to B.Ed. course
but got the same, it will result in encouraging corruption, nepotism and favouritism in
the admissions. It is a serious complaint of the public that in these admissions
corruption, nepotism and favouritism is writ large. How far it is correct. It is not a
matter for consideration of the Court at this stage but if in case this relief is granted to
this class of persons by the Court on this alleged ground certainly it may result in
opening flood gate of corruption and favouritism. As said earilier in these two
petitions there appear all possibiliies of mainpulation of the admission by the
petitioners at the respondent No.2 College in collusion with the persons concerned and
connected with the making of the same. Where the merit is only criteria and
consideration for the admission to this course it is to be prevailedonly and no other
consideration whatsoever. The Court proceeded in such matters on sympathy or have a
lenient view or a casual approach it will result in serious blow to this merit criteria and
consideration for these admissions to the B.Ed. courses.

47. Learned counsel for the petitioners though placed reliance on some decisions of
this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but same are of little help and substance
to the petitioners in these matters. Each case has tobe considered, approached and
decided on its ownfacts. In the case in hand it is not in dispute that the admission to
the B.Ed.courses arecontinued in pursuance of the PTET upto 28-4-2001. The
admissions were closed only on 28-4-2001 and that is the point of time from which the
Court has to take into consideration the duration of the period of study of the
petitioners in the course. On the very day of closure of admission, the admissions of
the petitioners in B.Ed. courses at the respondent No 2 College have been cancelled
by respondent No. 1. It is to be stated at the cost of repetition that the order/letter of
respondent No. 1 is dated 28-4-2001 and in pursuance thereofthe letter/order of the
respondent No. 2 made is of 2-5-2001. These petitions have been filed bythe
petitioners on 15-5-2001. No question doesarise of continuing the petitioners with
thestudies in B.Ed. courses from 2-5-2001 to15-5-2001 and in substance till the day
on whichthis Court as been pleased to grant stay i.e. upto 17-5-2001. Thereafter the
petitioners arecontinuing in the college only on the basis of the interim relief granted
by the Court which isalways subject to the final decision in thepetitions. The matter if
consideredfrom thisaspect the petitioners have hardly continued inthe course for few
days i.e. from 28-4-2001 to 2-5-2001. That is one aspect .

48. There is yet another aspect and if the matter is examined and considered in light
thereof, we can reach to the same conclusion. In case of these considerations what is
projected, urged and prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if any relief is
granted to the petitioners it will result in depriving the right of admission to many
candidates who are higher than the petitioners in the merit list. One of the meritorious
candidateshas alsoapproachedthe Court but ultimately could not get theadmission as
many other meritorious candidates than her couldnot be given admission. Miss Ritu
Singh who filed petition in the Court has notbeen given admission to the B.Ed. course
byrespondent No. 1 for the reason that as per her merit, she secured less marks in the
PTET thenmany candidates and she cannot be given admission. The reference here
my be had to the letter of respondent No. 1 dated 28-4-2001 addressed to her which
reads as under :-

       MOHANLAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY
       OFFICE OF THE CO-ORDINATOR, PTET-2000
       C-9, DURGA NURSERY ROAD,
       UDAIPUR-313001
       No. MLsu/PTET/2000/4783-86
       Dated 28-4-2001.
       Miss. Ritu Singh
       D/o Shri Prahalad Singh, ASI
       Near Deen Dayal Park,
       Bhpur Pura Ward,
       BARAN (Raj.)
       This is in continuation to this officeletter No. 3773-74 dated : 24-4-2001.
       Yourcomplaint regarding admission of Miss Reena Jain at 352 marks was
       examined by this officer. Heradmission was wrongly made because of
       wrongsubject combinations for which she was noteligible. Her admission has
       been cancelled bythis office with immediate effect. Along with her, two more
       admissions of similar nature havebeen cancelled. We have also checked from
       our records that your name does not come in current merit list of candidates of
       your category and, therefore, it is not possible to grant admission because of
       low marks (400) secured by you. After cancellation of these admissions in your
       disrict/category, your grievance of low marks admissions stands disposed off
       both at the same time. You can not be granted admission. This is for your
       information.

       (L.N. VYAS)
       CO-ORDINATOR
       Copy to Hon'ble Jusice K.S Rathore, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.
       CO-ORDINATOR"

49. Injustice which was done to Miss Ritu Singh by not giving the admission to her to
B.Ed.course though the petitioner Reena Jain stands at lower merit was given
admission has been undoneby cancellation of the admission of the petitioner Reena
Jain. Miss Ritu Singh could not have beengiven admission even after cancellation
ofthe admission of the petitioner Reena Jain looking to her position in the merit list. It
ReenaJain is allowed to continue and complete thecourse and further to get the degree,
it will result in causing grave and serious injustice aswell as hardship to Miss Ritu
Singh. It is not the case of either of the counsel for the partiesthat Ritu Singh has
carried the matter in the Court.Miss Ritu Singh has not carried thematter further may
be for the reasons that ReenaJain's admission is cancelled and otherwise alsoas per her
merits secured n PTET she stands atlower merit number. From her this merit position
she could not have been brought to the level ofthe candidate who secured 428 marks.
The case of Miss Ritu Singh and Reena Jain is identical. In case Ritu Singh could not
have been given admission as good numbers of candidates above her in the merit list
are there but those could not get the admission to B.Ed. course becuase of cut off
marks, how far it is justified, reasonable, fair and requitable to continue Miss Reena
Jain petitioner with the course and get the degree. In case this is done by the Court, it
will resultin hostile discrimination among one class ofpersons. Miss Reena Jain and
Miss Ritu Singhstand on same footing and in case Miss Ritu Singh could not have
been given admission because of her position in the merit list how it isjustified to
permit indirectly Miss Reena Jain tocontinue with the studies and get the degree bythe
Court under its extraordinary equitablejurisdiction. If is done, it will certainly result in
perpetuating not only illegality butunconstitutionality as well as to affirm the
admission given to these petitioners de hors the merit which is the only criteria and
consideration for the admission to the B.Ed. course.

50. Similar is the case with anotherpetitioner viz. Pinky Jain, She also does notstand in
merit, Above her there are three more meritorious candidates who could not get the
admission and in case her claim is accepted, it will result in making the hostile
discrimination. Not only this will result in perpetuating illegality by the Court
confirming her illegal admission indirectly by continuing her in the B.Ed. course. In
these matters the decisions on which the reliance has been placed bythe learned
counsel for the petitioners are of little help to them.
51. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised
acontention that on cancellation of the admission of these two petitiioners two seats at
therespondent No. 2 College shall remain vacant andthis will not give any benefit to
those candidates who are above in the merit than the petitioners. This is also again a
contention though on the face of it looks attractive but ifwe goby the substance of the
matter is of littlehelp to the petitioners. What will happento these two seats it is not the
concern of the Court. The Court has to look into the legalityof the admissions of these
two petitioners inthe B.Ed. course. In case this Court protectsthe petitioners though
they could not have gotthe admission in B.Ed. course undisputedly because of their
merit position in the merit listonly on this fortuitous circumstances it will give a heart
burning and pains to as many as 21candidates. Those candidates will get this
impression that the candidates who can manipulate the admissions and go to theCourt
ultimately get the desired results. This way if these petitioners are protected on the
basis of this fortuitous circumstances, it will give a wrong message to the peoples as
well as it wiill resultin encouragement of illegal admission as a result of corruption,
favouritism and nepotismetc. This way the Court will permit theadmissions made in
total disregard and violation of the merits which is the only criteria andconsideration
for the admission to the B.Ed. courses. The law is almost well settled thatthis Court
sitting under Article 226 of theConstitution will not perpetuate any illegality. This
Court sitting under Article 226 of theConstitution may decline to or refuse to issue
awrit of mandamus or certiorari where effect ofthe quashing and setting aside of the
impugned order would be restoration of an illegal order. The reference here fruitfully
may be had tothe decision of the Apex Court in case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh 11 and twodecisions of this Court in case of Jagan
Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal,Rajastahan 12 Himmat Jain v. State of
Rajasthan,13 Reference may be had also to onedecision of the Kerala High Court in
case of A.M. Mani v. Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary,
Trivandrum, 14 and two decisions of Patna High Court in case of Devendra Prasad
Gupta v. State of Bihar, 15 and Chintamani Sharan Nath Sahadeo v. State of Bihar, 16

52. The admissions of these petitioners are undisputedly contrary to the admission
rules to the B. Ed. courses and the respondent No. 1 has not committed any illegality
whatsoever to cancel their admission. In case the orders dated28-4-2001 and 2-5-2001
are quashed and set aside this Court will restore the admission of thepetitioners which
undisputedly are per se illegal being de hors the merits and admission rules. This is
not permissible to the Court sittingunder Article 226 of the Constitution. In thefacts of
thesecases it is not equitable also to continue these twopetitioners with the courseand
complete it and get the degree. This equity claims to have been created in favour of
thepetitioners on the basis of these two fortuitouscircumstances viz. first that they
havecontinued for a period from 20-1-2001 to 1-5-2001 by the college and from 18-5-
2001 till date under the order of this Court. Leaving apart thequestion of bonafide of
the petitioners as well as respondent No. 1 it is an undisputed fact that the admissions
given to the petitioners were not legal. Some time may have been taken by the
authority/officer to detect the mistake committed by it/them in making the admission.
This mistake some time is being detected on their own or some time they are forced to
detect under the Court's order or on the complaint filed by the candidates who have
wrongly been denied the admission despite merits.

53. Here in this case Miss Ritu Singh has approached this Court and on its direction
theexercise has been undertaken by the respondent No. 1 ultimately it is detected that
these twopetitioners have illegally been given admission at respondent No. 2 College.
After this no timewhatsoever has been taken by the respondents intaking the action
against the petitioners. Thedecision in Ritu Singh's matter was given by thisCourt on
13-4-2001 and within very short periodthereafter this exercise has been undertaken,
completed and the admissions of the petitioners were cancelled. So looking to and
examiningthese two cases from any angle, I do not find that any equity is created in
favour of thepetitioners which justifies their continuation with the course and to permit
them to completethe course and get the degree. Be that as it maybe this question of
equity in favour of thelitigant is to be considered with reference to theillegality
committed by respondents in giving the admissions to them. The petitioners in case
are permitted to continue with the course, complete it and get the degree, it will result
in perpetuating illegality only on thisabstract consideration of equities. Equity does not
mean to protect, continue and culminate ultimately inconferring of the degrees on the
petitioners only on the basis of these two fortuitouscircumstances. If
theCourtsproceeded with these considerations in these matters certainly it will result in
perpetuating illegality and ifthere is conflict between the illegalities committed in
giving admissions to the petitioners and equity, I am of the opinion that equity may not
be given weightage in all the cases. Secondly the matter is to be considered
withreference to those candidates who could not manipulate or manure the admission
in the B.Ed. course though they are more meritorious than thepetitioners. The
reference here fruitfully may be had to the decision of the Apex Court in case of
Council for Indian School Certificate Examination v. Isha Mittal 17 Though that matter
has come up before the Hon'bleSupreme Court against the interim order passedby the
High Court but therein it is held that considerations of equity do not permit the High
Courtto pass an order which is contrary to law. This what if this contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, the Court will do in these cases . The
admissions of the petitioners are admittedly illegal and result of setting aside of the
order of possession No. 1 of cancelling their admission will be restoration ofthe illegal
admissions. In these facts only on the basis of this claim of equity no such ordercan be
passed nor any protection can be given tothe petitioners.

54. The reference may be had to another decision of the Apex Court in case of
Mallikarajuna Mudhagal Nagappa v. State of Karnataka 18 That is the case directly on
the issue of the admission to the educational institution. There theirLordships of the
Supreme Court observed that they are not impressed by the factthat the studentsare
before the Courtchallenging the orders ofdepartment that they cannot be permitted to
takethe examination. If their admission was notvalid and was beyond the permitted
quota of 60, the Court cannot help them. The reference maybe had to other deisions of
the Apex Court in case of State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla 19 and State of
Maharashtra v. VikasSahebrao Roundale, 20 In the first case in para No. 8 of the
judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :-

       8.The admission in medical course throughout India is governed by differrent
       statutory provisions, including regulations framed under different Acts. During
       last several years efforts have been made to regulate the admissions to the
       different medical institutions, in order to achieve academic excellence. But,
       atthe same time, a counter attempt is also apparent and discrenible, by which
       the candidates, who are not able to get admissions against the seatsfixed by
       different statutory authorities, filewrit applications and interim or final
       directionsare given to admit such petitioners. We fail toappreciate as to how the
       High Court or this Courtcan be generous or liberal in issuing suchdirections
       which in substance amount to directingthe authorities concerned to violate their
       ownstatutory rules and regulations, in respect of admissions of students."

55. In case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebra Roundale (1992 (4) SCC 434 :
(AIR 1992 SC 1926) (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in para No. 12 (of
SCC) : (Para 11 of AIR) of the judgment, observed as under :-
       Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education
       andexamining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the
       education. The directions tothe appellants to disobey the law is subversive of
       the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for
       indiscipline. The HighCourt, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in
       exercising its prerogative powerconferred under Article 226 of the Constitution,
       directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination
       etc."

56. In view of the disputed facts of thesecases and the decisions of their Lordships of
the Supreme Court in cases of Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa v. State of Karnataka
21 State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla,22 and State of Maharashtra v. VikasSahebrao
Roundale (AIR 1992 SC 1926) (supra) I do not find it to be a fit case to permit these
petitioners to continue and complete the course and get the degree of the B.Ed. No.
equity whatsoever is their in favour ofthe petitioners which may justify their
continuation with the studies in B.Ed. that is to indirectly quash and set aside the order
of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to cancel the admission of the petitioners. A thing which is
not legally permissible to be done directly cannot be done by the Courtindirectly.

57. In the result these petitions fail and the same are dismissed but without any order
asto costs.

Petition dismissed.

Cases Referred.

1. AIR 1986 SC 1448
2. AIR 1987 SC 2305
3. AIR 1994 SC 1448
4. AIR 1995 Raj 44
5. (1987) 72 RajLR 832
6. (1984) 1 SCC 43 : (AIR 1984 SC 273)
7. (1996) 3 SCC 364 : (AIR 1996 SC 1669)
8. (1996) 5 SCC 460 : (AIR 1996 SC 2736)
9. (1980)4 SCC 379 : AIR 1981 SC 136
10. (2000) 7 SCC 529 : (AIR 2000 SC 2783)
11. AIR 1966 SC 828
12. AIR 1980 Raj 1 (FB)
13. AIR 1994Raj 53
14. AIR 1968 Ker76 (FB)
15. AIR 1977 Pat 166
16. AIR 1990 Pat 165
17. (2000) 7 SCC 521
18. (2000) 7 SCC 238 : (AIR 2000 SC 2976)
19. (1994) 1 SCC 175 : (AIR 1994 SC 595)
20. (1992) 4 SCC 435 : (AIR 1992 SC 1926)
21. (AIR 2000 SC 2976)
22. (AIR 1994 SC 595)