1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging judgment dt. 06.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 369/2021.

2) The 1st respondent-University had issued in May 2020 a prospectus for admission in M.Sc/MBA (Agri Business Programme) for the academic session 2020-2021.

3) Clause 3.1 (a)(iv) of the said prospectus laid down the minimum qualification to be possessed by candidates for different disciplines of M.Sc/MBA (Agri Business Programme).

4) It stated inter-alia as under:-

“3.1 Minimum Qualification/eligibility The eligibility criteria of candidates to the different disciplines of M.Sc/MBA (Agri Business) programmes is given below:

(iv) B.Sc (Hons) Horticulture/B Sc Horticulture/B.Sc (Hons) Forestry/ B Sc Forestry 4 years programme under ICARAU system (SAUs/ CAUs/ CU’s with Agriculture faculty). However, if seats remain vacant, the candidates with B Sc (Hons) Biotechnology/B Tech Biotechnology, B Sc (Hons) Agriculture/BSc Agriculture under ICARAU system (SAUs/CAUs/ CU’s with Agriculture faculty) shall be considered on merit basis in order of preference. If seats still remain vacant the candidates with BSc Medical under ICARAU system or UGC recognized universities will be considered on merit basis.”

5) The appellant had passed Bachelors of Science (Hons) in Agriculture from respondent no.2-University in 2020. The said University is a private university, though stated to be affiliated/recognized by the University Grants Commission.

6) Though, originally an entrance test was proposed to be held on 27.06.2020, but in view of Covid-19 Pandemic, a decision was taken not to conduct any entrance test for the PGET-2020 for admission in Post-Graduate programme for the academic session 2020-2021, and merit list of candidates was directed to be prepared by taking into account their OCPA/marks obtained in the qualifying degree plus weightage for sports (cultural) co-curricular activities, NCC, scouting and MSS, if any, but the minimum qualification/eligibility as prescribed originally in the prospectus was not changed.

7) Thereafter on 03.12.2020, respondent no. 1 put up a notice which stated as under:-

“This is for the information of the applicants, who have applied for admission to M.Sc. Programmes of this University for the Academic Session 202021 for Normal Seats and have passed their B.Sc Agriculture/Horticulture/Forestry etc. degree from SAUs/CAUs/CUs with Agriculture Faculty that the University has prepared tentative merit list on the basis of the documents supplied by the applicants with their counselling proforma. There is a separate list of those candidates, who have passed their B.Sc degree from NonSAUs/CAUs/CUs with Agriculture faculty and in accordance with the prescribed minimum qualification, they are not entitled for allotment of seat in M.Sc programme of this University.”

8) The candidates who had passed their B.Sc. from Non-State Agricultural Universities, Central Agricultural Universities, Central Universities with Agriculture faculty were thus declared not entitled for allotment of seats in M.Sc. programme and the appellant’s name was also included in the list of rejected candidates appended along with the notice.

9) Thereafter on 11.12.2020, respondent no. 1-University had issued an addendum carrying out the following amendments in Chapter-III of the prospectus:-

“The candidates who have passed out from ICAR- AU system (SAUs/CAUs with Agriculture Faculty) and ICAR accredited universities/ colleges/programmes, public funded/Govt. Institutions (including their constituent colleges irrespective of ICAR accreditation) are eligible for admission through counselling on merit basis. However, candidates passed out from agricultural private universities/colleges not accredited by ICAR, even though affiliated to public funded/Govt. Institutions are not eligible for admission. Other conditions will remain same”.

10) This was followed by yet another addendum on 15.12.2020 which reads as under:-

“The candidates who have passed out from ICAR- AU system (SAUs/CAUs with Agriculture Faculty) and ICAR accredited/universities/colleges/ programmes, public funded/Govt. Institutions (including their constituent colleges irrespective of ICAR accreditation) are eligible for admission through counselling on merit basis. However, candidates having B.Sc 4-year degrees of Horticulture/ Forestry/Agriculture/Food Technology from agricultural private universities/colleges not accredited by ICAR, even though affiliated to public funded/Govt. Institutions are not eligiblefor admission. Other conditions will remain same”.

11) Since the candidature of the appellant was rejected, she alongwith another candidate filed CWP no. 369 of 2021 for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the impugned Annexure-P7, dated 3rd December, 2020, whereby the candidature of the petitioners for admission to M.Sc (Agriculture) Programme has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the impugned Annexure-P8 (colly), addendums dated 11th December, 2020 and 15th December, 2020 whereby the eligibility criteria for admission to M.Sc (Agriculture) Programme was modified/notified midway the admission/selection process, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iii) That the respondent No.1-University may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for admission to M.Sc (Agriculture) Programme strictly as per the merit of the petitioners against normal seats or self-financing seats.”

12) The learned Single Judge by order dt. 06.03.2021 dismissed the Writ Petition.

13) The learned Single Judge held that as per para 3.1 of the original prospectus prescribing the minimum qualification/eligibility, candidates were required to have obtained B.Sc (Hons) Horticulture/B.Sc Horticulture/B.Sc (Hons) Forestry/B.Sc. Forestry four years programme under ICAR-AU system (State Agricultural Universities, Central Agricultural Universities, Central Universities with Agriculture faculty) on merit basis for admission and after filling the seats on the said basis, if there are any other seats vacant, then students having B.Sc (Hons) Agriculture/B.Sc. Agriculture under ICAR-AU system would be considered on merit basis in order of preference.

14) The learned Single Judge further held that since the appellant had obtained B.Sc (Hons) Agriculture degree from respondent no. 2- University which is not under the ICAR-AU system, and since respondent no. 2 is not a State Agriculture University/Central Agriculture University/Central University with Agriculture faculty and is a private University affiliated/recognized by the University Grants Commission, she did not fall within the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause 3.1 of the prospectus.

15) The learned Single Judge further held that the subsequent amendments made on 11.12.2020 and 15.12.2020 have no application to the case of the appellant; that the appellant did not challenge the eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus issued in May, 2020; many others like the appellant also would have been disqualified from admission by respondent no. 1 on similar grounds; and however hard the case of the appellant may be, she cannot be granted relief.

16) Challenging the same, this appeal is filed.

17) We find that the reason of the learned Single Judge that the appellant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause 3.1 of the original prospectus because she did not obtain the graduation degree from ICAR-AU system, to be unexceptionable particularly because even the learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute this fact.

18) Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the application of the appellant was not rejected at its threshold, and having accepted it and processed it, the 1st respondent-University could not have refused admission to the appellant to the said course.

19) The aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted because the terms of the prospectus are binding on the appellant as well as the 1st respondent-University; the appellant had not even questioned the prescription of the eligibility criteria in Clause 3.1 of the prospectus as regards the M.Sc Agriculture/MBA (Agri Business Programme); and merely because the appellant’s application was stated to be received and processed, it would not estop the 1st respondent-University to refuse admission on the ground of the appellant’s ineligibility.

20) Learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that after this LPA had been preferred, this Court had granted stay on 15.03.2021 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition; on 19.04.2021 the said order was modified and the respondents were directed to admit the appellant provisionally and permit her to attend the classes against the discipline of Environmental Management in a self-financing seat till further orders making it clear that such orders would be subject to any further order to be passed by the Court; and that till date, the said order has been in force and the appellant has even completed the course; and thus equities exist in favour of the appellant and the appeal should therefore be allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

21) We may point out that order dt. 19.04.2021 specifically states that the order permitting the appellant to be admitted provisionally to the course of M.Sc Environmental Management and to attend the classes was subject to further orders passed by this Court. Therefore, the mere fact that the appellant had completed the course would not create any special equity in her favour if ultimately the appeal is liable to be rejected confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.

22) Learned Counsel for the appellant then contended that because at that time Covid-19 Pandemic was there, entrance examination could not be held and admission was to be made purely on the basis of the marks obtained in the graduation and the admissions made, even if erroneous, should not be disturbed in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and others vs. Orissa Private Engineering College Association (OPECA) and another (2021) 7 SCC 468..

In the said decision, the High Court had allowed the Writ petition filed by the Orissa Private Engineering Association allowing its member institutions to grant admissions to students for the B.Tech (Engineering) degree course for the academic session 2020-2021 on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examinations and in relaxation of a statutory requirement that all admissions have to be based on a centralized entrance test. The decision to give up the entrance test was taken in that case on the basis of a circular issued by the All India Council for Technical Education on 19.08.2020 permitting filling up of vacancies for the PGDM/MBA course on the basis of the marks scored by the aspirants in the qualifying examination. But it appears that the said circular was erroneously applied by the High Court for the B.Tech (Engineering) degree course though the AICTE had not extended it to the said course.

The Supreme Court further held that the judgment of the High Court was erroneous and it proceeded on misconception of law and is liable to be set aside, but in view of the impact of Covid- 19 Pandemic and the fact that 592 students had taken admission under direct entry and 243 students had taken admission under lateral entry in the B.Tech degree course, it exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and directed that those students should not be disturbed for that year.

23) The said decision was rendered by the Supreme Court thus invoking its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which power this High Court does not possess, and therefore this Court is unable to grant such relief to the appellant.

24) In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

25) Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.