1 2025:CGHC:3594-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 413 of 2025 1 - Riddhi Sahu D/o Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Jamdi, Post- Girjapur, Dist. Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - University Grants Commision Having Its Office At 35, Ferozshah Road, New Delhi 3 - Director Directorate, Technical Education Raipur, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Registrar Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Dist.- Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Director Rungta Educational Foundation, Having Its Office At Kohka-Kurud Road, Bhilai Chhattisgarh 6 - President And Principal Government Girls Polytechnic, Bairon Bazar, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, G.A. (Res. No. 1) Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate (Res. No. 2) Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate (Res. No. 4) 2 Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21 .01.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents from pursuing her MBA course in the college of Respondent No. 5 and has made following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition preferred by the petitioners and direct the respondent authorities to address the grievance of the petitioner and further order re-opening of portal so that the name of the petitioner can be added in the list of student pursuing MBA and also direct the respondent authorities to ensure the admission of petitioner for course of MBA course for the academic year 2024- 25. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/ writs, order/orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the cost of the petition. (iii) That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice may kindly be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that she is student pursuing her MBA course from the respondent No. 5/ college which is followed that the respondent No. 4/ university. She completed the entire formalities of her admission in the college and paid requisite fees on 08/10/2024 and had attained classes for about a month, thereafter, the respondents have stopped her form attaining the classes of MBA course by saying that her name is not shown in the CGDTE portal which displayed the list of students who are pursuing MBA course from university and thereby, she denied admission in the college. The petitioner was stopped from attending college since 13.11.2024. Being aggrieved by the action of the 3 respondent authorities, she made a representation on 20.11.2024 to the respondent No. 3 and requested the authorities to consider her representation and reopen the CGDTE portal so that the petitioner’s name can be added in the list of MBA student. He would further further submit that on the recommendation made by the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 has constituted a committee consists of three members on 22.11.2024 headed by the respondent No. 6. Vide memo dated 25.11.2024, the respondent No. 6 asked the petitioner to submit the copy of her registration for entery into counseling portal of CGDTE, copy of allotment letter to the institute for admission through counseling of CGDTE and other relevant/ requisite documents which were required for admission in the institute. In reply to the memo dated 25.11.2024, the respondent No. 5/ college has explained that a temporary admission was given to the petitioner in good faith in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08/10/2024 passed in Misc. Application No. 1961/2024 in CA No. 9048/2012 order dated 23.09.2024. But the date of admission was not extended by the respondent No. 3, permanent admission of the petitioner could not be done. It is also explained that the petitioner did not participate in the counseling and therefore, there is no document of her online counseling registration and institute allotment/ admission letter. It is further submitted by him that the committee headed by the respondent No. 6 has submitted their inquiry report dated 05/12/2024 with report that the respondent No. 5 has taken fees from the petitioner and gave her admission in the college against the rules. It is also reported that despite not having passed the required eligibility test, she was given admission by the respondent No. 5. Since, the petitioner was not at any fault, she may be permitted to attend the classes of MBA in the respondent No. 5/ college and the CGDTE portal may be opened for one day 4 so that all the formalities with respect to the petitioner may be fulfilled. He would further submit that the petitioner belongs to a farmer family having poor financial conditions yet somehow she managed the fund and got admission in the college. By the act of the respondent/ authorities her career would be materially affected as she could not impart her education for whole of the year and thereby she stand on back amongst all. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that since the petitioner has not qualified for admission in the MBA course as she has not passed entrance examination test, she could not have been given admission in the MBA course yet, the respondent No. 5/ college has given her admission which ultimately found faulty and thereby she has been stopped from attending the classes. The CGDTE portal cannot be opened as the same would create more complication and would amounts to permit the other candidates also which resulted into multipliticity of litigations. From the inquiry report submitted by the committee, annexed with the petition as Annexure-P/6, it is clearly reveals that the petitioner has not successfully cleared the entrance test for the same. He would further submit that the petitioner as well as the college/ respondent No. 5 has incorrectly interpreted the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.09.2024 in Misc. Application No. 1961/2024 in CA No. 9048/2012. Since, the entire process adopted by the respondent No. 5 is found faulty, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, however, she is entitled for her fees which has been deposited by her with the respondent No. 5/ college. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5/ college would submit that on the legitimate expectation they have given admission to the petitioner and received fees of the course but subsequently for one or other reasons her 5 admission could not be recognized in the college and her name is not shown in the CGDTE portal for MBA students. Since, the college is unable to permit her to attend classes for MBA as she is not the student of the college, the college is ready to refund the fees obtained from her. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/ State and respondent No. 2/ university grant commission would also supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the document (Annexure-P/6) which is the inquiry report submitted by the committee reveals that the petitioner has not successfully cleared the entrance examination for MBA course for the year 2023-24 yet she was given admission in the respondent No. 5/ college on 08/10/2024 in the first year of MBA course. It has also reflects from the inquiry report that total fees of Rs. 36,791/- was deposited by the petitioner with the respondent No. 5/ college and she is attended the classes of MBA, 1st year up to 31/11/2024 and on that day she was stopped from attending the classes. It has also come in the inquiry report that the petitioner was given admission after last date of counseling on anticipation that on the date of counseling may be extended by the university/ directorate as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also extended the period of admission for academic year 2024-25 by one month vide its order dated 23/09/2024 passed in Misc. Application No. 1961/2024 in CA No. 9048/2012 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But the date of counseling was not extended and therefore, her admission could not be regularized. It is also in the report that the college is ready to refund the fees deposited by the petitioner and in the inquiry report, 6 it has been concluded that the petitioner was provided admission against the ruled by the respondent No. 5/ college. 8. Be that as it may, since, the admission of the petitioner was against the rules and without following the procedure, the stand taken by the college cannot be justified yet this Court is also concerned the rights of the petitioner as she has got admission initially and attended classes for about a month, she paid the admission fees and other requisite fees. It appears that the petitioner was not at any fault but the respondent No. 5/ college is at fault. But the ultimate sufferer would be the petitioner as her whole academic year has gone. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot direct for reopen the CGDTE portal for admission of the petitioner in the college and therefore, we do not find any ground to allow the petition and to grant relief to the petitioner. 10. However, considering the loss suffered by the petitioner, she definitely is entitled for compensation for the act of the respondent No. 5/ college. Therefore, we direct that the respondent No. 5 shall refund the fees obtained by her amounting to Rs. 36,791/- along with the interest @ 8% per annum from the date of its deposition till its actual payment, within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The respondent No. 5 is also directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 2 lakh to the petitioner for the loss suffered by her within same time period fixed by this Court. 11. With this observation, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika