BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY VARANASI Vs. ROHINI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. Challenge in the Special appeal on hand is to the correctness of the judgment dated 23-10-98 of the learned Single Judge whereby the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 194 of 1998 instituted by respondent - Ku. Rohini Singh culminated in being allowed post-fixed with the directions to the appellants to give her admission in the one-year M. Ed. Course. The petition was also awarded cost quantified at Rs. 2000. 00.

(2.) THE necessary facts as bear on the controversy involved in this appeal are that the petitioner- respondent- Km. Rohini Singh, took entrance test for admission to one-year M. Ed. Course 1997-98 conducted by the appellants. THE aforesaid course had seating allocation for 25 students including three supernumerary seats. 50% of the total seats were reserved for Banaras Hindu University students that is to say for students who have been admitted through University Entrance test, B. H. U. and have passed the qualifying examination from the Institute/faculty/mahila Mahavidyalay, Banaras Hindu University in the year of the test or one year immediately preceding the test.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the order of cancellation of petitioner's admission to B. H. U. in M. Ed. course, was vitiated due to the reasons that; firstly, the principles of natural justice were not only flagrantly violated but were thrown to the winds and the petitioner was treated in a most unjustified, arbitrary and capricious manner. Secondary assuming that the petitioner on account of the mistake of the authorities of University was wrongly admitted to M. Ed. course, her admission could not be cancelled as she was not at fault in bringing about the situation. Thirdly, the information Bulletin which contained the definition of the expression 'b. H. U. student', simply contained the parameters of admission not having any statutory sanctity being attributed to them; and lastly, the categorisation of students in B. H. U. and Non-B. H. U. categories had been rendered "otiose" in the fact-situation of the case.