SANJAY KUMAR Vs. ASIA PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition concerns the cancellation of admission granted to the petitioner for the PGDBM Programme for the Session 2006-2008 by the respondent No.1 (Asia Pacific Institute of Management). The petitioner applied for admission in the said programme and by a letter dated 12.01.2006, he was informed by the respondent No.1 that, based on his performance in the admission process of group discussion and personal interview, the Admission Committee of the respondent No.1 had approved his name for admission to the said PGDBM Programme. The petitioner was required to submit a fee of Rs.70,000/-, including Rs.5,000/- refundable security by 28.01.2006, which the petitioner did. However, by a letter dated 24.05.2006, the respondent No.1 informed the petitioner that the Admission Committee for the PGDBM Programme had noticed that the petitioner did not meet the minimum cut off percentage criteria in graduation of 50% and above. In view of this, it was indicated that the respondent No.1 was unable to offer the petitioner a seat in the PGDBM Programme. The amount of Rs.70,000/- was refunded to the petitioner by a demand draft dated 19.05.2006.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that the respondent No.1 nowhere specified the minimum cut off percentage criteria of 50% as indicated in the letter dated 24.05.2006. And that, in any event, the petitioner had been granted admission and could not have been denied the seat.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 referred to the prospectus issued by them for the PGDBM Programme. He indicated that the eligibility and selection process was clearly spelt out. Insofar as the selection process was concerned, a written test was required. A candidate was also to qualify in the group discussion and the personal interview. It was provided in the prospectus that the candidates who qualify in the written test would be called for a group discussion and personal interview. The final selection would be based on the candidate's overall performance in the written test, group discussion, personal interview and past academic record. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the petitioner's past academic record? was not upto the standards insofar as the marks obtained by him at the stage of graduation were concerned.