MANOJ NIDI Vs. CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal prayer is that a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued to the co-ordinator, Admission Committee, Harcourt Bulter Technological Institute, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to, as the Institute), to admit the petitioner in the B. Tech. 3 years programme in paint Technology.

(2.) The Institute has put in appearance. It has also filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder-affidavit. The petition is, therefore, ripe for hearing though not formally admitted as yet. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we are proceeding to dispose of this petition finally.

(3.) The material facts which emerge from the record is that the Chairman of the Admission Committee of the Institute by means of an advertisement notified that a Combined Entrance Examination (C.E.E ), organised by the Institute for admission in a number of participating institute mentioned in the advertisement, for the academic year 1989-90 will be held on 22nd May, 1989. There is a note to the effect that the application form with information Brochure containing the details of C. E. E. 1989 will be available from 1st Feb., 1989 from all the participating institutions of U. P. mentioned in the advertisement. The information brochure for the Combined Entrance Examination 1989 in paragraph 2.1. had a heading "Institute wise academic Qualifications and Age Limit". Not less than 26 institutions are mentioned under this heading and the Institute is one of them. Its place was at Serial No. 6. For 3 years course in Bichemical Engineering, Food Technology, Oil Technology, Paint Technology and Plastic Technology apart from minimum academic qualifications, the requirement of age was that the maximum limit was 22 years as on 1st Oct., 1989, relaxable by 3 years in case of S.C./S.T. Candidates. The petitioner was neither a S. C. nor S. T. candidate. Annexure-1 to the petition appears to be a proforma of letter to be issued by the Co-ordinator of the Admission Committee to the various candidates. It is alleged that the petitioner received a letter on the said proforma. By this letter, the petitioner was required to bring with him certain documents, one of them was original High School Certificate as proof of age while reporting at the office of the Admission Committee. The petitioner was also advised to carry with him attested photostat copy of the High School Certificate as proof of age. The petitioner forwarded his admission form. Ho deposited a sum of Rs. 560 which included 600 as fee and Rs. 50 as counselling fee with the Admission Committee of the Institution. He was allotted roll No. 46937. He was issued an interview letter. He was interviewed and thereafter he was informed that he could not be admitted in B. Tech. 3 years programme in Paint Technology as he was Overage on 1st Oct., 1989.