K SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for issuance of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the list of candidates provisionally selected for MBA (2004-06) in the second respondent college, to quash the same and direct the second respondent to admit the petitioner in MBA Course for that year.

(2.) THE challenge to the said selection is on the ground that the second respondent institution failed to follow the admission procedure as has been clearly set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgments reported in T. M. A. PAI FOUNDATION vs.- STATE OF KARNATAKA (2002 (8) SUPREME COURT CASES 481) and ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER vs.- STATE OF KARNATAKA (2003 (6) Supreme Court Cases 697 ).

(3.) THE petitioner, who has completed his B. Tech. Petro- Chemical Technology in the School of Engineering and Technology of Bharathidasan University in First Class applied for admission to the MBA Course in the second respondent Institution called school of excellence. The said institution is stated to have been ranked as A1 by Business India. It is also stated that the students, who pass out from the said institution, get a placement in the reputed companies in India and abroad, in campus interview. The petitioner, who belongs to most backward community, applied for the said Course. It is also not in dispute that while the admission procedure was initially announced by the second respondent institution prescribing a different procedure, subsequently, by its letter dated 5. 2. 2003, informed the candidates that admission to MBA programmes would be made only through one of the five All India Entrance Tests, namely, CAT, JMET, MAT, ATM and XAT. In other-words, subsequent to the directives of the third respondent, AICTE, it was ascertained that admission of students could be only on the basis of the All India Test stipulated by the third respondent. The second respondent, therefore, decided to admit the students on the basis of the All India Test conducted by ATMA (Association of Indian Management Schools) and by holding interview and group discussion based on the mark scored in the said test namely ATMA. The petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- towards cost of ATMA Bulletin. The ATMA test was held on 8. 2. 2004. Subsequently, based on the mark scored in the said test, all the candidates were individually sent call letters to attend the other tests, such as group discussion, personal interview, essay writing and academic verification. The petitioner was called upon to participate in the said second round of selection process to be held on 28. 4. 2004 at 9. 00 a. m. In the communication dated 22. 3. 2004, calling upon the petitioner to attend the said second round of selection process to be held on 28. 4. 2004, the petitioner was duly informed as to the scope of such selection process and the test which the petitioner may have to undergo in that process. The petitioner was also called upon to produce all the original testimonials at the time of his personal interview to be held on that date. As far as the test results of the ATMA was concerned, the same was said to have been fed into the Web-site and was made available to all candidates concerned. The petitioner attended the second round of the selection process and subjected himself to the said process on 28. 4. 2004. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he was not found selected, while candidates who secured lesser marks in the All India Test, came to be selected and therefore, he was aggrieved by the manner of selection made by the second respondent institution, which persuaded him to come forward with the present writ petition.