PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR MEERUT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that a writ of mandamus be Issued to the respondents to allow him admission in M.Ed, course 1991-92 in Meerut College Meerut Parties have exchanged affidavits and therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, is that Meerut College is an institution affiliated to Meerut University and it imparts education upto Post Graduate level; that the petitioner applied for admission in M Ed. course and submitted an application for that purpose in the University; that the University recommended his name for admission In Meerut College; that the petitioner approached the. Head of the Department of Education in Meerut College who asked for a report from the Proctor of the College; that the Proctor gave a report that the petitioner's name was in the list of candidates 'not to be admitted'; that thereafter the Chairman of the Admission Committee refused to admit the petitioner. THE case of the petitioner further Is that the State Government has issued an order on May 5, 1987 in exercise of powers conferred by a section 28 (51 of State Universities Act. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in accordance with the said order the Principal has no power to refuse admission to any student once his name is recommended by the Vice Chancellor of the University.

(3.) IN my opinion the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted. There is no allegation in the writ petition that before refusing to grant admission to the petitioner, the Principal had not taken permission from the Vice Chancellor, This permission need not be for each INdividual student, Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit Is a list prepared by the office of the Principal of the Meerut College on October 29, 1991 and It contains names of those persons (category 'A') who were not to be admitted in the college at ail and the name of the petitioner finds place in the said category. It is quite possible that this list was prepared by the Principal after taking permission from the University. IN absence of any clear and specific allegation in the writ petition to the effect that no permission was taken by the Principal from the University before refusing admission to the petitioner it is not open for him to contend that there has been a violation of para 12 (3) of the Government-Order. Learned counsel has referred to paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition IN this regard. I have carefully perused the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition and in my opinion the necessary factual foundation has not been laid in the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition which may enable the petitioner to contend that there has been a breach of para 12 (3) of the Government Order. Faced with the, difficulty, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit and also to a letter dated March 7, 1992 sent by the Vice Chacellor to the petitioner. It is not open to the petitioner to allege new facts IN the rejoinder affidavit. The letter of the Vice Chancellor has been sent in reference to the petitioner's application dated February 28, 1992. The copy of the aforesaid application has not been filed. IN rase the petitioner wanted to rely upon the aforesaid letter of the Vice Chancellor and wanted to plead some new facts, he should have sought the permission of the court to file a supplementary affidavit and then the respondents would have got an opportunity to file a reply thereto. It will not be proper to rely upon those facts and documents which have been brought on record for the first time through the rejoinder affidavit as the respondents has |got no right to file a reply to the same.