JEEVAN KERKETTA Vs. CHHATTISGARH SWAMI VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to allot the enrollment number and roll number to the petitioner, to declare the result of the B.E. 1st Semester (Electronics & Telecom Engineering), and to compensate for the loss of academic session 2009-2010.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. He appeared in the Pre-Engineering Test for the year 2009 and secured 3600 rank. In the counseling, he opted for the Electronics & Telecom Engineering (for short 'ET') branch for B.E. course. THEreafter, the petitioner was admitted in the Government Engineering College, Raipur on 04.08.2009 after paying the requisite fee along with other charges and also submitted all the requisite testimonials as required by the college. THE petitioner also submitted his enrollment form and deposited the required fee with the respondent No. 4. His enrollment form along with other students, were sent to the respondent-University. However, the petitioner was not allotted any enrollment number and thus, he could not appear in the examination for the year 2009-2010. THE petitioner took re-admission in the year 2010-11 for the same course and again submitted his form for allotment of enrollment number with requisite fee of Rs. 60/-. THE examination for the sessions 2010-11 started from 27.12.2010 but again the petitioner was not allotted any enrollment number nor his admit card was sent for appearing in the examination. On 27.12.2010, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No. 4 that his admit card was not sent to him, therefore, he be permitted to appear in the examination. His application was considered and he was permitted to appear in the 1st semester examination without the roll number and the answer sheet and OMR sheet of the petitioner was sent to the University for valuation in a separate sealed packet. THE University, on 10.01.2011 sent an intimation to the respondent No. 4 that the petitioner had appeared in the PET examination in the year 2009 and has taken admission in the college for the session 2009-2010 but he was not enrolled with the University for the said session, therefore, the enrollment of the petitioner for the session 2010-11 under clause 4(i) of the Ordinance 4 of the University. THEreafter, the University gave a show cause notice to the respondent No. 4 college on 14.01.2011 with regard to granting permission to the petitioner to appear in the examination without the enrollment number and the roll number. THE said notice was replied by the College on 18.01.2011 in which it was stated that the enrollment form of the petitioner was sent on 21.09.2010 as a special case and till the last date of submission of the examination form, neither the enrollment number was allotted nor his form was rejected by the University. Thus, the examination form was forwarded and he was permitted to appear in the 1st semester examination for the session 2010-11. THEreafter, the College again wrote a letter to the respondent No. 3 requesting to intervene in the matter and to allot the roll number to the petitioner under the provisions of clause 2.10 and 2.11 of the Chhattisgarh Engineering Courses Admission Rules, 2009 (for short 'the Rules, 2009"). On 25.03.2011, the University sent an intimation to the petitioner that the college has not forwarded the application form of the petitioner for enrollment in the session 2009-10, therefore, the allotment of roll number for the session 2010-11 was not possible under clause 4(i) of the Ordinance 4 of the University.

(3.) SHRI Moorthy, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No. 2 to 4 would submit that bare perusal of the chart annexed to the letter dated 30.09.2009 makes it clear that the respondent-College has forwarded the enrollment forms alongwith the requisite fee of all the 329 students in different disciplines of first semester for B.E. and the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 66, vide communication dated 39.09.2009. Thus, the respondent-College has done the job on his part and thereafter, it was for the respondent-University to allot the enrollment number and roll number of the petitioner.