Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 360 of 2025 1. Mrinal Pandey, aged about- 19 years, D/o- Parveen Kumar Pandey, Residenty of – Manjhgawan, Padma, P.O. & P.S.- Padma, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ……Appellant No.1/Petitioner no.7 2. Aiman Yusuf, aged about-20 years, D/o-Shamshad Yusuf, Resident of Village Amnari Road, Meru BSF Near Beer Shop, Hazaribag, P.O. Meru BSF, P.S. Muffasil, Kundari District- Hazaribag. Jharkhand. ……Appellant no.2/Petitioner no.8 3. Anvesha Priya, aged about 19 years, D/o-Bijay Kumar Dubey, R/o- Shivdayal Nagar, Kadma, P.O.- Kadma, P.S. Katkamdag, Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ….. Appellant no.3/Petitioner no.10 4. Sakshi Anand, aged about 20 years, S/o-Late Uday Shankar Prasad, Resident of-House no. 255 Near Upkar Hotel, DVC Colony, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand. ...Appellant no.4/Petitioner no.25 5. Shaviani Bhardwaj, aged about-19 years, D/o-Manoj Kumar Singh, Resident of House No. 1/3 DOG Scout CTS Colony, Hazaribagh P.O.-Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ....Appellant no.5/Petitioner no.29. 6. Aamra Khanam, aged about 19 years, D/o- Khalid Khan, Resident of Pelawal, P.O. & P.S.- Pelawal, Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand. .....Appellant no.6/Petitioner no.30 7. Suryakant Raj, aged about-20 years, S/o- Om Prakash Gupta, resident of Bhagyamani, Emporium, Gola Road, Badam Bazar, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S.-Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ….. Appellant no.7/Petitioner no.31 8. Nishant Kumar, aged about 20 years, S/o-Subhash Kumar, R/o- Singhani, P.O.- Korrah, P.S.- Muffasil, Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. .....Appellant no.8/Petitioner no.32 9. Farhan Ansari, aged about 19 years, S/o-Zahid Hussain, Resident of Babu Gaon, P.O.-Korrah, P.S. Korrah, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB .....Appellant no.9/Petitioner no.38 10. Ritul Rani, aged about-19 years, D/o- Ranjan Kumar R/o- Kishunpur, Mohalla, Near New Petrol Pump, P.O.-Chatra, P.S.- Chatra, District-Chatra, Jharkhand .....Appellant no.10/Petitioner no.54 Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand thorugh the Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Jaganathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Chancellor, through the Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) O.S.D.J.) to Governor, State of Jharkhand, Governor’s Secretariat, Governor Office, (Raj Bhawan), P.O. + GPO+ PS – Kanke, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, through Registrar Sindoor Ichak, Hazaribagh, P.O. – Hazaribagh, P.S. – Sadar, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand – 825301. 4. The University Law College through the Principal, Vinoba Bhave University, Sindoor Ichak Hazaribagh, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand-825301. 5. The Bar Council of India, through its Chairman at 21 Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. Indraprastha, District Central Delhi. 110002. 6. The Jharkhand State Bar Council, Jharkhand, through its Chairman, at Bangalow No.5 near Kendriya Vidyalay, Shyamali Colony Doranda P.O. &. P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi 834002. Jharkhand. .......Respondents/Respondents. --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Pratyush Shonikya, Advocate For the State: Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II For the University: Mrs. Indrani S. Choudhary, Advocate Miss Ishani Sen, Advocate For the BCI: Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, Advocate For the JSBC: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate --------- 07/Dated: 28.01.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB 2. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 19.09.2024 dismissing the appellants’ petitions for quashing the notice dated 29.11.2023 issued by the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, for conducting the entrance examination/test on 12.12.2023 for fresh/ revised admission for the session 2022-2025 for LL. B and for sessions 2022-2027 for B.A. LL.B. The appellants/petitioners also pray that the admissions granted to them in March 2023 for the B.A. LL.B session 2022-2027 be regularised and continued without any requirement for them to appear for the Special Entrance Test as declared by notice dated 29.11.2023. 3. Mr Pratyush Shonikya, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that there was nothing inherently wrong in the admissions granted to the appellants and, therefore, the insistence by the University that the appellants appear for the Special Entrance Examination was illegal and uncalled for. He submitted that the College had 120 seats, and after it was realised that several seats were vacant because students like the appellants could not attain the cut-off marks, the College resolved to admit the students on a ‘first- come, first-served basis’. He pointed out that this had been the procedure followed since the academic year 2012-2013, and that there was nothing inherently wrong with the procedure adopted. 4. Mr. Shonikya, without prejudice to the above contentions, submitted that there was no fault whatsoever on the part of the appellants in this matter. He submitted that the fault, if any, was of the College and under no circumstances should the appellants be made to suffer for such faults. He submitted that the appellants were bona Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB fide students who were duly admitted by the College and continued with their studies for almost one and a half years, until they were unseated by the impugned order dated 19.09.2024. 5. Therefore, invoking the principles of equity, no student should be made to suffer for faults not attributable to such students or, for faults attributable to the College/University and on that basis, Mr. Shonkiya submitted that the appellants’ admissions should be regularised and the appellants should be permitted to complete the B.A. LL.B Course for the session 2022-2027 without insisting upon answering the Special Entrance Test, or, notwithstanding their failure in the special entrance test which they attended without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the petition and in this appeal. 6. Ms. Indrani Sen Choudhary, the learned counsel for the Vinoba Bhave University, to which the College concerned was affiliated, submitted that there was everything wrong with the initial admissions of the appellants for the B.A. LL. B Course. She submitted that the College was bound by the cut-off percentage prescribed under the rules and regulations, but the College continued to lower this cut-off requirement from time to time without lawful authority. She submitted that despite lowering the cut-off requirement from 40% to 35% for the general category, the present appellants did not qualify. She submitted that the College, in breach of all rules and regulations, then devised their own procedures and admitted the appellants by invoking the principle of “first-come, first-served “ basis. She submitted that this was totally illegal and improper. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB 7. Ms. Indrani Sen Choudhary submitted that, after this was noticed by His Excellency, the Governor of Jharkhand, who is also the Chancellor of the University, a lenient view was adopted notwithstanding the patent illegality. The Chancellor, as is evident from the communication dated 25.10.2023, directed the conduct of a special test for students, including the present appellants, who were admitted through backdoor entry. She submitted that instead of welcoming this decision and clearing the special entrance test, the present appellants chose to challenge the holding of such a test. In any event, she submitted that the appellants answered the special entrance test but, again, failed to qualify. 8. Ms. Indrani Sen Choudhary submitted that the initial admissions of the appellants were patently illegal, and even the attempts to regularise their admissions by holding a special entrance test met with no success because the appellants failed to qualify in the special entrance test. She submitted that the appellants have been out of College since November 2024 and still insist on continuing the B.A. LL.B course for the session 2022-2027, which is completely impermissible. 9. Ms. Indrani Sen Choudhary, therefore, submitted that there is no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and this appeal should be dismissed. 10. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 11. In this case, the facts are quite gross, and it is apparent that the appellants have been put forward by the College to invoke the sympathy of this Court by urging that the appellants, not being Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB responsible for any wrongdoing, ought not to suffer. However, it is well settled that on such a basis, no relief can be granted to the appellants where the record unmistakably establishes that their very admissions were patently contrary to law and the regulations which govern the prescribed admission procedures. 12. In this case, the College conducted an entrance examination with a 40% cut-off percentage. On the grounds that few students could meet the cut-off percentage, the College approached the University, which lowered the cut-off percentage from 40% to 35% for general category students. We are uncertain whether the University was justified in lowering that percentage. However, since that is not the subject matter of the challenge before us, we leave the matter at that. 13. Notwithstanding the lowering of the cut-off percentage long after the admission process had commenced, the present appellants could not qualify because they had obtained less than 35% marks, which was the cut-off percentage for general category students. Learned counsel for the appellants admitted that the appellants had secured around 27% to 34% marks in the entrance examination. Given the above admitted position, the College should not have admitted the appellants simply because some seats would otherwise remain vacant. Such admission was only to earn money from these students, with complete disregard for the rules and regulations for admission. 14. It appears that the college did not inform the University of the admission of these students, even though they had secured a score below the lowered cut-off percentage in the entrance test. At the stage Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB when admit cards had to be issued, the University realised what had happened, and His Excellency the Chancellor of the University took cognisance of the entire matter. 15. The decision of His Excellency the Chancellor was communicated to the Vice Chancellor of the Vinoba Bhave University for onward transmission to the College. This is contained in the communication dated 25.10.2023. The contents of this communication are self-explanatory. The contents are transcribed below for the convenience of reference: - Letter No.- VBU-12/2023-330/G.S Dated:-25.10.2023 From, Mukesh Chandra Narain, O.S.D. (Judicial) to Governor. To, I/c Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. Sub: Necessary action relating to illegal admission in University Law College, Hazaribagh. Ref:- Your letter no.- VBU/VC/678/2023 dated- 21.09.2023. Madam, With reference to the subject and letter referred above, I am directed to inform you that His Excellency the Governor-cum- Chancellor of the Universities has been pleased to order:- (i) To initate departmental proceeding against Dr. Kaushlendra Kumar and Dr. Jaydeep Sanyal without any delay and ensure that the same be concluded within a month. Through-E-maill Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB (ii) To return Dr. Kaushlendra Kumar to his parent posting (teaching work). (iii) To ensure that in future no key post be given/assigned to Dr. Kaushlendra Kumar except teaching work. (iv) To conduct a special test for the students who are allowed admission through backdoor entry. (v) To allow further study of only those students who qualify in the special test. This is for information and compliance. Your’s faithfully, Sd/- Illegible O.S.D (Judicial) to Governor, Jharkhand, Ranchi.” 16. In this appeal, we are not concerned with the action taken against the Principal and the Director of the College who were involved in granting illegal admissions, inter alia, to the present appellants. One of the directions issued by His Excellency, the Chancellor, was to conduct a special test for students admitted through backdoor entry. Again, we are unsure whether this direction meets the requirements of law and regulations, but, as explained by learned counsel Ms Indrani Sen Choudhary, such a direction was issued out of compassion for the appellants’ plight and to determine whether their admissions could be regularised. 17. The appellants, instead of welcoming the decision to hold the special test, chose to institute a writ petition to challenge the direction to hold the special test. The appellants’ case was that their initial Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB admissions were themselves regular and, therefore, requiring them to appear in a special test was improper. 18. Mr. Shonikya contended that for the special test, a cut-off percentage of 35 was provided. He submitted that if the appellants could secure this percentage of marks, they would have secured admission in the first round without having to undergo this entire process. Though Mr. Shonikya has argued the matter very ably, this argument, we are sorry to say, is entirely misconceived. 19. The appellants should have appreciated that His Excellency the Chancellor, out of compassion, decided to provide the appellants with an additional opportunity to regularise their admissions. Instead of welcoming this move, studying hard and securing the prescribed 35%, the appellants, possibly on legal advice, chose to challenge the examination itself. 20. In any event, the appellants, without prejudice to their challenge, appeared in the special entrance examination. However, they failed to obtain the prescribed cut-off percentage of 35. As a result, the University and the College had no option but to discontinue their admissions. This decision was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed all the petitions, holding that the admissions initially granted to the appellants were unlawful. In any event, the appellants failed to take advantage of the indulgence extended to them by His Excellency the Chancellor, who held a special test. The learned Single Judge noted that, despite all opportunities, since the appellants had failed to qualify, no relief could be granted to the appellants. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB 21. We are not persuaded to take any view different from that which has been taken by the learned Single Judge in this matter. Learned that the Single Judge has analysed the issue from all perspectives, including compassion and sympathy. However, we agree with the learned Single Judge that this is not a case in which any relief can be granted to the appellants, and, further, the grant of relief to the appellants would set up a very unhealthy precedent in relation to admissions to professional law colleges. 22. The issue is not merely about the grant or regularisation of admission to the appellants, but the issue is whether students, who failed to even get 35% marks as prescribed under the rules and regulations in the entrance test, should be admitted to law colleges, merely because, otherwise, the seats would remain vacant. Any relaxation at this core level would constitute a relaxation of the profession’s standards. Therefore, much is at stake, and even after extending indulgence to the appellants, they have failed to pass muster. 23. The argument that the appellants were not at fault does not persuade us. This is a usual argument that the college management puts up through the students. If the appellants, i.e., the students, are not at fault, they should perhaps sue the College, which has wrongly granted them admission, and recover damages. Learned counsel for the University points out that the appellants have already filed a separate writ for this purpose. The learned counsel for the appellants denies that any such separate writ is filed. However, he points out that, by the impugned order, there is a direction for the refund of fees Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:2093-DB and documents, and that the College has not complied with that direction; accordingly, a Contempt Petition has been filed. 24. Be that as it may, if the appellants indeed feel that they have been wronged by the College, it is left to them to seek appropriate remedies against the College. However, on the ground that they are not at fault, the appellants cannot insist upon lowering the standards of admission as have been statutorily prescribed and continuing in the Law College. This is more so because from November 2024 onwards, the appellants are already out of the College and at this stage, it would be most inequitable to direct their readmission to the College and allow them to continue and complete their course. 25. There is no error in the impugned order warranting any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without any order for costs. 26. Pending interim application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) January 28, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Cp.2 Uploaded on 30.01.2026