UTKARSH SHARMA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. A.L. Sangal, Registrar, DR. B.R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar (Respondent no.3) appears in person. He states that he has no Advocate and will argue in person. He has contended that the rules of admission are framed by the Central Counselling Board (Respondent no.2) constituted each year and as per which rules of admission the students are required to produce the original certificates disclosing eligibility for admission latest by 15th September; that the petitioner did not produce any certificates; not even of having passed the class Xth examination. It has been enquired from DR. A.L. Sangal as to why the class Xth certificate is required. He states that the same is required as a proof of date of birth. He however admits that mere production of X th class certificate without the XIIth class certificate would not have been sufficient. He further contends that the petitioner had submitted an affidavit at the time of provisional admission undertaking to produce the said certificate by 15 th September, 2010 and was in breach of the said undertaking also.

(2.) THE aforesaid arguments are the same as the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondents no.1and2 on the last date of hearing and dealt with in the order dated 10th November, 2010. This Court in Deepika Chaudhary Vs. University of Delhi 64(1996) DLT 503 held that a student exercises no control over the declaration of result and when there is no fault attributable to the student, the provision has to be benevolently interpreted and reasonably administered and having regard to the welfare of the student. It was further held that the University cannot be permitted to follow a rigid approach by depriving the petitioner of her seat for the course to which the student has been admitted on merit. To the same effect is the judgment of the Apex Court in Shalini Vs. Kurukshetra University (2002) 2 SCC 270 also holding that a student cannot be faulted for the delay in declaration of result.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not allowed to attend the classes though willing to.