AMIT CHAUDHARY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 24.01.2011 and 10.03.2011 vide which the petitioner has been detained from appearing in the LL.B examinations.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner took admission in the LLB course of the Delhi University after securing 795th rank in the entrance examination. That the petitioner had done a two year Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management (PGDBM) from Wigan and Leigh College(UK) which he claimed to be equivalent to an MBA degree. The Equivalence Committee of the respondent -University did not recommend the case of the petitioner and consequently the petitioner was debarred from appearing in the Ist semester examinations in November, 2010 and now in the IInd semester examinations. Feeling aggrieved with the action of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) MR .Sanjeev Sharma, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after completing his graduation in B.Com (Hons.) the petitioner had appeared for the Management Aptitude Test (MAT) conducted by All India Management Association(AIMA) and after qualifying the same he was admitted to Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management (PGDBM) course to be undertaken by Wigan and Leigh College(UK). Counsel further submits that the petitioner was permitted to appear in the LL.B entrance test examination conducted by the respondent No.2 on 30.05.2010 and the overall rank of the petitioner was 795 out of the total seats of 2310 offered by the respondents for admission in the LL.B course. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was called for counseling by the admission committee of the respondent No.2 on 16.06.2010 and was directed to deposit the fees which he had deposited vide receipt No.9488 on the same day. Counsel also submits that in fact the petitioner had attended classes of the first semester and his attendance in the first semester was 95%. Counsel further submits that in the month of November,2010 the petitioner was asked to submit a representation with regard to his course of PGDBM for consideration of the same by the Equivalence Committee of the respondents. Counsel also submits that to the shock and surprise of the petitioner he was asked not to appear in the first semester examinations of LL.B till a decision is taken by the Equivalence Committee on his representation. Counsel further submits that the petitioner made various representations to the respondent No.4 for the consideration of his case and it is only on 17.03.2011 that the petitioner received a letter dated 10.03.2011 from the respondent No.3 informing the petitioner that the decision already taken by the University vide their letter dated 24.01.2011 is reiterated. Counsel further submits that after having received the said communication dated 10.03.2011 the petitioner made repeated visits to the office of the respondent No.1 besides sending several e -mails, but the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of personal hearing to explain the Equivalence of the said PGDBM to MBA.