K PAKKIRIMUTHU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for admission to M. Sc. (Zoology)Course in the Presidency College (Autonomous), Madras5, for the academic year 1988-89 and received the acknowledgement card dated 29. 6. 1988 for the receipt and registration of his application. He was assigned the Registration Number Z-45.

(2.) FOR the admission to 1988-89 academic year, the Presidency College , Madras, issued prospectus for M. A. , M. Sc, M. Com. , M. Phil. , etc. , mentioning the eligibility qualifications, etc. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was eligible to apply for the course. It may be stated at this stage that there are only 18 seats for the I year M. Sc, (Zoology ). The first selection list was published on 9. 7. 1988 and ten out of eighteen students seem to have joined the course after the interview on 19. 7. 1988. A Waiting List was also published on 19. 7. 1988 mentioning eighteen other names and six from this list joined after attending the interview on 20. 7. 1988. A second Waiting List was prepared on 29. 7. 1988 to fill up the remaining two vacancies and the petitioner's name was not considered. On 30. 7. 1988 respondents 4 and 5, who appear in person today before this Court, and who admittedly got lesser marks than the petitioner were given admission. It is an admission of fact that the names of neither the petitioner nor respondents 4 and 5 found a place in the main list or in the waiting list published on 9. 7. 1988. The petitioner waited for a reply from the College and approached the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Madras, personally and he also sent a petition to him on 1. 8. 1988 by registered post. It seems respondents 4 and 5 were admitted on the spot by issue of slips on 29. 7. 1988.

(3.) THE main ground for refusing admission to the petitioner is that he is a repeater. I do not understand the meaning of the word'repeater', especially when the student has not completed his studies earlier in a particular course joined in a different college and has come out in the middle Of the year without any stigma on his part due to certain other reasons. It is true that the petitioner has not shown in the particular column in the application, the reason for his discontinuance of studies during 1987-88, but that alone will not be a reason for the respondents to deny him a seat, if he is otherwise fully qualified. Learned Government advocate relies on the guidelines for the autonomous colleges. Paragraph 10 of the communication from the University of Madras to the Director of Collegiate education, dated 23. 9. 1987 provides that the Presidency College is empowered to set up various Committees, one of which is the Admission Committee. I do not see any guidelines prescribed for the Admission Committee to prescribe norms and regulations for admission. If the Selection Committee has prescribed norms and regulations, they should have been mentioned in the prospectus issued to the students who apply for admission.