SHAHBAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. A.B.L. Gaur for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1. In spite of the fact that the petitioner's future has been hampered on account of the non-holding of B.B.A. Examinations and the declaration of its result, yet the relief claimed in the present petition for admission in M.B.A. course cannot be granted. The contention of Sri. Gulab Chandra is that the advertisement itself permits undergraduates, who are yet to appear in their examinations, to apply for appearing in the entrance test.

(2.) However, in the opinion of the Court, the admission after the entrance is subject to the holding of the minimum eligibility degree of Bachelor course. So long as the petitioner does not possess the same, he cannot claim admission as a matter of right on the presumption that his undergraduate final examinations are likely to be held very shortly and results would follow. This would be imposing a condition, which would be otherwise than what is contemplated under the Advertisement or under the Rules. A candidate has to be eligible for admission on the date of the consideration of his candidature according to the last date fixed. The institution cannot be asked to wait for the eligibility to be acquired in future. A line has to be drawn for possession of eligibility and it cannot be an endless wait. In the circumstances, this being an unfortunate case, this Court cannot exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution which is hereby declined. The petitioner's sheer bad luck or the inability of the institution to hold an examination and award a degree cannot be a ground to compel the respondents to wait and admit the petitioner in future. Any delay by the institution from where the petitioner pursued his undergraduate or graduate programme in holding examination or declaration of result cannot be a ground to postpone the counselling or admission date of the petitioner. This would amount to modifying and adding terms to the advertisement of entrance examination which is beyond the scope of any interpretive attempt by this Court. This, being a pure academic and administrative decision, could be only scrutinized on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On facts that emerge, the Court does not find any such infringement or violation of any rules.