YATHARTH GUPTA Vs. NETAJI SUBHAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks directions to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to participate in the 3rd round of second phase of counseling as per his rank and merit to seek admission in B.E. Course. The Petitioner also seeks directions to direct the Respondent No. 1 to make a proper provision in the prospectus to provide further time or to depute an authorized representative of the candidate, who due to some emergent circumstances is not able to present himself in the second phase of counseling.

(2.) Brief facts as set out by the Petitioner in the petition relevant for deciding the present petition are that the Petitioner is a resident of Ghaziabad and after having qualified his 12th examination of CBSE Board had appeared in the All India Engineering Entrance Examination (AIEEE), 2011 conducted by the CBSE and in the said examination he secured an All India Rank of 7936 and general category rank of 6638. After having qualified the said entrance test, the Petitioner sought his admission with Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology, the Respondent No. 1 herein, which is an autonomous institute of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Respondent No. 2) and is affiliated with the University of Delhi, imparting education in engineering courses. The Petitioner got himself registered on-line to seek admission in B.E. Course in the Respondent No. 1-institute and that he deposited the necessary registration fee of Rs. 1,000/-on 13.06.2011. As per the criteria laid down in the prospectus issued by the Respondent No. 1, the admission process has been divided into two phases, with each phase having three rounds of counseling. It is also the case of the Petitioner that as far as first phase of counseling is concerned, the same is on-line and for consideration of participation in the second phase of online counseling, physical presence and marking of attendance has been made compulsory and the said date as per the prospectus (for outside general category candidates) was 26.07.2011 and for Delhi region general candidate the date was fixed as 25.07.2011. It is also the case of the Petitioner that as per his rank he could not make up in the first phase of counseling and, therefore, as per the laid down requirements in the said prospectus, the Petitioner was required to present himself and mark his attendance to participate in the second phase of counseling on 26.07.2011. It is also the case of the Petitioner that because of suffering from viral fever and severe gastritis on 25.07.2011 he was taken to nearby hospital for treatment where the Dy. Medical Superintendent attending the Petitioner advised him rest for a period of four days. It is also the case of the Petitioner that against the medical advice the Petitioner left his home on the morning of 26.07.2011 at about 8:30 a.m. and reached Anand Vihar Metro Station by bus, but after reaching there his physical condition was so bad that he started feeling unconscious and was brought back to his home by his uncle. It is also the case of the Petitioner that it took him 4-5 days to regain his health to normal and after having recovered from his illness, he along with his father visited the Respondent-institute on 01.08.2011 so as to meet the officials of the Respondent No. 1 to check his admission status. It is also the case of the Petitioner that although the counseling was still in progress but he could not get any definite reply from the officials of the Respondent No. 1 and on 08.08.2011 the Petitioner and his father met the Chairman of the Admission Committee, who informed them that the Petitioner still stands a fair chance to get admission in the third round of second phase of counseling as the students having rank of 6700 of outside Delhi category had already been considered in the second round of second phase counseling. The said Chairman, however, informed the Petitioner that he already stands debarred to participate in the said counseling, as he had failed to present himself and mark his attendance on 26.07.2011. It is also the case of the Petitioner that he made a representation on 12.08.2011 to the Director of the Respondent No. 1-institute to plead for his participation in the third round of second phase counseling to be held on or before 31.08.2011. It is also the case of the Petitioner that a part of third round of second phase of counseling was held on 13.08.2011 itself in which candidates up to the rank of 8700 (outside Delhi category) were considered for admission, but yet some seats were still available for which a further round of counseling was to be held by the Respondent No. 1-institute. In the said background of facts, feeling aggrieved by being denied to participate in the counseling, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Saini, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has strongly contended that the Petitioner had duly qualified the entrance examination i.e. AIEEE, 2011 conducted by the CBSE which is a highly competitive examination and had secured All India Rank of 7936. The contention of counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner would be deprived to get a seat in the Respondent No. 1-institute mainly because he could not present himself to mark his attendance on 26.07.2011, that too on account of circumstances beyond his control. Counsel also argued that No. provision has been made by the Respondent No. 1-institute in the prospectus to deal with the supervening circumstances due to which the candidate may not be able to cause his physical presence on the stipulated date and time. Counsel also raised a plea that even in the prospectus, there is No. provision where a student can also be represented through an authorized representative to allow the student to be registered to participate in the second phase of counseling process. Counsel also submits that it is not the case of the Petitioner that he did not turn up for the counseling or refused to take admission after having got the seat in the first phase of counseling or there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner not to participate in the first phase of counseling, although as per his rank he could get the seat in the first phase of counseling, as in such cases only the candidate can be refused to participate in the next phase of counseling. The argument of counsel for the Petitioner is that mere absence of the Petitioner just to report his physical presence and mark his attendance on the stipulated date i.e. 26.07.2011 with No. provision to provide for any supervening circumstance, such denial to the Petitioner would play havoc on his career. In support of his arguments, counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Saurabh v. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. WP (C) 4782/2010 decided on 22.07.2010.