R MANJUNATH Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition runs in the following terms :-

(2.) In answer what is the stand of the respondents is well brought out from the following averments found in para 12 of the counter affidavit which run as follows -

(3.) Assuming that one seat alone is available for the course in question on the facts disclosed before me, I do not find any warrant in keeping the petitioner away from that. What is contended by Mr. S.K.L. Ratan, learned counsel for the respondents, is that when there are other candidates who should be preferred, considering the percentile obtained by them, the petitioner cannot be preferred. In answer, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when those students have not cared to agitate for any right or claim of theirs, it has to be presumed that they are not interested and hence the claims of the petitioner who is consciously agitating for his rights need not stand negatived for induction to the course in question. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1971 SC 2303. The relevant passage in the pronouncement runs as follows -