RAHUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to admit him to Class XI in 1991-92 Session in Biology/Commerce in St. Joseph College, Allahabad. The petitioner's case is that he is student of St. Joseph College, Allahabad and has been studying there from Class VI. He is said to have passed Indian Certificate of Secondary Examination (I.C.S.E.) New Delhi in the year 1991 conducted by the Board Indian Council Secondary Examination, New Delhi. Thereafter, he applied for admission in Class XI in commerce and Biology but was denied the admission without giving any reason. He is said to have passed examination with 52.4% marks which makes him eligible to seek admission in Class XI. Other students who have secured less marks than the petitioner have been given admission in Class XI by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has been denied admission without any cause. The petitioner and his father approached respondents Nos. 2 and 3 with a prayer that he be granted admission but the meeting did not yield any fruit, therefore, writ is filed by the petitioner. In Allahabad City only two English medium institutions are available. The petitioner applied for admission in Boys High School also which was the only alternative for him. He was advised by the Principal of the said institution to approach the Principal of St. Joseph's College for admission. The petitioner has been trying to seek admission in the respondents' institution but he has not been able to do so and he has been refused the admission without any reason.

(2.) It is stated that respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have public duty, imposed on them by the constitution to admit the petitioner and allow him to pursue his studies. They have admitted students with inferior merits. The petitioner is refused admission though he is superior in merits than the boys who have been admitted. The respondents' refusal to admit the petitioner is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because the students inferior to the petitioner in merits have been granted admission but the petitioner has been refused admission which is negation of equality. Article 14 of the Constitution forbids discrimination or class legislation. The respondents' refusal to admit the petitioner is discriminatory, therefore, Article 14 of the Constitution is invoked.

(3.) The petitioner's prayer at the interim stage for provisional admission was rejected by this Court vide its order dated 11-10-91. Other side has already filed a counter-affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit also is filed. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the writ petition be finally disposed of. Any delay caused in disposal of the writ petition is said to be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, in accordance with the Rules of the Court I proceed to decide this petition finally on merits.