Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 22: In a landmark judgment, Division Bench of High Court comprising Justice Virender Singh and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat today imposed costs upon MIET to the tune of Rs 50,000 per student which shall be paid to the students directly by MIET or by depositing the same with Registrar Judicial of the court within two weeks.
MIET will have to return the registration fee, admission fee and any other fee deposited by each student out of the slot of 33 candidates at the time of their admission or at any subsequent stage within this period only.
After hearing Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi assisted by Advocate Veenu Gupta appearing for the students, Senior Advocate PN Raina with Advocate SS Ahmed appearing for the Model Institute of Engineering and Technology, AAG Seema Shekhar for the State, Advocate Anil Sethi for the BOPEE, Advocate WS Nargal for the Jammu University, the DB observed, “MIET evolved a mechanism of its own for the purposes of filling its intake capacity, may be under the impression that BOPEE will not be in a position to supply all the vacancies to it up to 30.09.2013 which exercise has not been carried out by any other private institute as stated by Advocate Anil Sethi appearing for BOPEE and not controverted also”.
“MIET has played very smart while admitting 33 candidates, may be under the mistaken belief that BOPEE will ultimately give authentication to this irregular admission”, the DB said, adding “as regards the arguments of Senior Advocate PN Raina that BOPEE has denied the opportunity of admitting the students to MIET and for that matter, any other private institute, we certainly agree with him”.
“Prima facie, there appears to be a lapse on the part of the BOPEE. In all fairness, BOPEE should have prescribed last date of its counseling much before the last date fixed by Supreme Court i.e 30.09.2013, thereby leaving scope for the private institutes to fill up unfilled seats, if any in terms of Rule 4(7) of Rules of 1997, which opportunity is not given as BOPEE continued with its counseling even up to the last date i.e 30.09.2013 as fixed by Supreme Court”, the DB further observed.
“We are conscious of the fact that even after supplying certain candidates to MIET by BOPEE on 30.09.2013 and despite the fact that 33 candidates also admitted by MIET by resorting to Rule 4(7) in anticipation of availability of seats, still 31 seats of MIET remained unfilled, but that aspect does not give any leverage to a private institute to make admission against the rules in vogue”, the DB said.
“We, however, leave MIET free to work out its appropriate remedy, if available to it against BOPEE. In fact, the real sufferers are the candidates who were admitted by MIET. It would now be immaterial even if this court holds that the admissions were made by MIET on 30.09.2013 itself, although the finding returned by the Writ Court on this factual aspect on the basis of certain communications addressed by MIET to BOPEE and University is against MIET for a simple reason that grant of admission to 33 candidates is dependent upon the initiation of very process of admission which we have held contrary to the rules”, the DB said.
Senior Advocate PN Raina also fairly conceded during the course of arguments that if the right of resorting to Rule 4(7) of Rules of 1997 in anticipation of the availability of the vacancies remaining unfilled by BOPEE is not made available to MIET, the finding on the factual aspect of the matter, as to whether the admissions were made by MIET on 30.09.2013 or thereafter would be an exercise in futility, the DB further observed, adding “we do not detain ourselves any further for recording any finding on this factual aspect of the matter”.
While dismissing both the appeals, the DB said, “what is more painful to us is that 33 students have been made to suffer by a process which MIET could not initiate at all being contrary to rules. The process of admitting these students has generated a baseless hope for them and have wasted their time and money, which aspect, no doubt has been considered by the Writ Court by giving them liberty to claim compensation from MIET, but, in our considered view, this needs to be addressed forthwith”.
Stating that 33 candidates/students deserve to be compensated, DB imposed costs upon MIET to the tune of Rs 50,000 per student which shall be paid to the students directly by MIET or by depositing the same with Registrar Judicial within two weeks.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel