ARCHANA SRIVASTAVA Vs. VICECHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner passed her B.A. examination from Allahabad University in 1996 in second division with 57.19% marks. In January. 1997 notification was published in newspaper inviting applications for LL.B. first year admission for the session 1996-97. Petitioner filled up the form and deposited it in the office on 13.1.1997. Receipt No. 4580 was issued to her on same say. For 1996-97 there was no entrance examination and admissions were made on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in graduation or post graduation examination. Intimation card was issued by Dr. H. N. Tiwari, Chairman LL.B. admission committee on 25.11.1998. The petitioner deposited admission fee on 26.11.1998 and she was enrolled as LL.B. first year student of Allahabad University. She was issued enrolment certificate by faculty of law on 24.2.1999. She joined regular law classes. In the short counter-affidavit, it is stated that the university received a complaint of large scale bungling in admissions of L.L.B. first year of 1996-97. The university, thereafter, constituted a committee which found that 214 candidates had been wrongly admitted. Their admissions were cancelled. The petitioner's name was also included in this list. According to the respondents, the petitioner's original application was not available in their office. This is the sole ground on the basis of which the petitioner's admission of LL.B. first year has been cancelled.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. S. Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, detailed counter-affidavit has also been filed. But there is no denial of the receipt issued by the university or the signature of the assistant. The only reason for cancellation of the admission is that the application form of the petitioner is not traceable in university records. The question is whether this was sufficient to give rise to an Inference in law that the petitioner was guilty of malpractice as alleged in the counter-affidavit. Copy of the receipt issued by the university has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It clearly mentions. "Received an application form for admission", from the petitioner. The university has failed to bring on record any material to show that this receipt was forged. It claims that since the admission form filled by the petitioner is not available in university record, the admission has been manipulated by the office. In other words, the petitioner is being held guilty because of university's failure to trace the admission form in record. In law no one can take benefit of its own mistake. The recital in the receipt is clear and specific. It cannot be overlooked. In absence of denial about the receipt, it cannot be assumed that petitioner obtained the admission without any application form. Moreover, there is no allegation that the university took any action against any staff and found that these receipts were manoeuvred. Therefore, it is, reasonable to assume that the petitioner deposited her admission form in the university for securing admission in LL.B. first year for the session 1996-97. She was admitted by the Chairman LL.B. admissions Sri H. N. Tiwari of the university and intimation card was also issued to her. It has not been explained how the intimation card was issued by the Chairman Admission Committee because normally the intimation card must have been issued on admission form and not otherwise. Petitioner deposited her fees also. All these facts clearly establish that the petitioner was not at fault and if the petitioner's application form was not traceable in the university office, it was the fault of the respondents for which the petitioner cannot be penalised.