Debangsu Basak JUDGMENT
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged a letter dated April 21, 2016 issued by the college where she is presently studying. By such letter it has been stated that, since the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria for admission to a B.Sc. Nursing course the petitioner will not be allowed to appear in further examination.
2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner has taken an admission in a B.Sc. Nursing course. The petitioner did not suppress any facts at the time of obtaining the admission. She has completed the Part-I and Part-II examinations of such course. The petitioner cannot be disallowed from continuing with her course at this belated stage. In support of the proposition that, since the petitioner is not guilty of suppression of any fact, the petitioner should be allowed to pursue her course, Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon All India Reporter 1976 SC 376 (Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University), MANU/SC/0107/1986 : AIR 1986 scc 1448 (Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University & Anr.), All India Reporter MANU/SC/0034/1989 : 1989 SC 823 (Ashok Chand Singvi v. University of Jodhpur & Ors.) and MANU/SC/0199/1990 : All India Reporter 1990 Supreme Court page 1075 (Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University & Ors.).
3. The college authorities are not represented.
4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the concerned university has submitted that, the educational qualification of the petitioner is such that, she could not have got an admission in the B.Sc. Nursing course. Consequently, she cannot be allowed to continue with her studies. He has submitted that, law prevails over equity and that the Court cannot take a sympathetic view in respect of a situation where the petitioner is ineligible to take an admission to a particular course. The Court should not permit such a student to continue with the course. In support of his contention learned Advocate for the university has relied upon 1993 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 401 (Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal & Ors.), MANU/SC/1047/1998 : 1998 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases page 377 (C.B.S.E. & Anr. v. P. Sunil Kumar & Ors.) and MANU/SC/1503/2011 : 2012 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 16 (Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM BEd College v. National Council for Teachers' Education & Ors.).
5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
6. The petitioner had taken an admission to a B.Sc. Nursing course. She has completed Part-I and Part-II examinations of the course from the college. Thereafter, the college authorities have issued the impugned letter dated April 21, 2016 stating that since she does not fulfil the eligibility criteria to take admission in the course, she will not be permitted to take any further examination in the course. In effect the petitioner has been told that, she cannot pursue the B.Sc. Nursing course any further in spite of her admission to the course and her successful completion of the Part-I and Part-II examinations.
7. None of the parties before me has alleged that, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of any fact while taking the admission. She has produced her mark sheet and all relevant papers for the purpose of consideration for admission to the course concerned. She was given the admission to the course. She was allowed to pursue the course for two years. She has successfully completed the Part-I and Part-II examinations. In fact, the college appears to have discovered the ineligibility on the basis of the same mark sheet by considering which the college had granted h........