AASIM KHAN Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by denial of admission to M.B.A. course for the session 1998-99 in the respondent University - Jamia Millia Islamia and he seeks a direction to the respondent University to admit him to the said course.

(2.) According to the averments in the petition the petitioner took the degree of B.Sc. (physics) from the respondent University in the year 1992. He took M.Sc. degree in physics from the respondent University in the year 1994. He did the B.Ed. course in the respondent University in the year 1997. Thereafter the petitioner applied for admission to the M.B.A. course for the session 1998-99. He appeared in the written test conducted on 22.11.1997. Having qualified in the written test the petitioner was called for interview on 2.1.1998. The first list of 60 selected candidates was published on 12.1.1998. A waiting list also was published by the respondent University. The candidates included in the waiting list were to be considered for admission in the seats remaining unfilled due to non-joining of the candidates included in the list of selected candidates. According to the petitioner the respondent university published a second list of selected candidates on 2.2.1998 and the petitoner was included in the said list at serial No.3 in the category of lold Jamia students. When the petitioner approached the respondent University on 3.2.1998 for depositing the fees he was not allowed to deposit the fees on the ground that he had earlier been admitted to the M.Ed. course. The petitioner informed the authorities that though he had been admitted to the M.Ed. course and had deposited the fees he had intimated to the authorities concerned that he did not intend to continue the M.Ed. course and had requested for return of the fees deposited by him. The matter was referred to the Admission Review Committe. However, petitioner was not allowed to deposit the fees in spite of the representations to the Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Technology and the proctor, Jamia Millia Islamia. Hence the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition.

(3.) In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it is stated that it is shown in the Prospectus of the respondent University that any person who has done a professional course from the respondent University will not be entitled to get admission to any other professional course and that any person who has done his post-graduation in one discipline will not be entitled to post graduate in another discipline from the respondent university. It is also alleged that the respondent University has violated its own rules in the matter of admission. As an example the petitioner has pointed out the case of Ms. Sunita Verma who was admitted to the LL.B. course in 1997-98 session though she had done the B.Ed. course in the year 1995 in the respondent university. The petitioner has also mentioned the case of another student (without furnishing the name) who was given admission to M.Sc. (physics) for the session 1996-97 though he had done M.Sc. (Chemistry) in 1992. Accordingi to the petitioner the respondent has used the pick and choose method in the matter of admission and the refusal of admission to the petitioner in the M.B.A. course was without any just or reasonable cause.