ZUNED KHAN Vs. AMITY UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the academic year 2010-2011 applied for and was admitted to the MBA (Gen.) programme of the respondent University. Fee of Rs. 2,23,000/- claims to have been deposited on 26 th July, 2010. THE petitioner however claims that though he was given identity card and provided enrollment number but was not given the roll number for the first semester end term examination due in November-December, 2010. When the representations of the petitioner failed to meet with any success, the present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent University to allow the petitioner to take the examination and to continue in the second semester of the course.

(2.) THE writ petition came up before this Court first on 17 th January, 2001 when it was found that the eligibility prescribed for admission to the MBA programme was minimum 60% marks in class XII and 50% marks in graduation from recognized University. Not finding the petitioner to have filed his mark sheet of Class XII, the matter was adjourned to today. It was also found that though the petitioner claims to have done graduation from the School of Open Learning of Delhi University but had passed the same in 3rd division i.e. with less than 50% marks. THE petitioner however claimed to have also done BBA from National Institute of Management Solutions (NIMS), Delhi and claims to have more than 50% marks therein. THE petitioner was also asked to show to this Court that NIMS is a recognized University.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has however drawn attention to the download of the application form processing status on the website of the respondent University showing the petitioner as eligible for selection process. Attention is also invited to the download of the registration status of the petitioner as on 1st November, 2010 on the website of the respondent University where the petitioner is shown to have been registered and the documents submitted by the petitioner are stated to have been verified and the enrolment and the status of the petitioner is shown as "Final". He thus argues that the respondent University after verifying the documents of the petitioner and having finally enrolled the petitioner is now estopped from contending otherwise.