GOPAL KRISHNA GUPTA Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, Union of India and the Incharge, Joint Entrance Examination to Indian Institute of Techno logy, Northern Zone (K), Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur to cancel the admission of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe stu dents, who did not secure qualifying marks in the entrance examination held in 1973. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is claimed for consideration of the petitioner and other students similarly placed for admission to the Technological Institu tions by eliminating the scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates who have failed to get the qualifying marks.

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is he had passed the Intermediate Examina tion held by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education and had appeared for the entrance examination held for ad mission to technological institutions run by the Union Government viz; Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Delhi Kannur, Kharagpur, Madras and Banaras Hindu University Institute of Technology, Vm-a-nasi. The petitioner could not set admis sion to the Institution of his choice as he failed to compete with the candidates who had appeared at the Entrance examination. The contention is that if the reservations had not been made for scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidates and they had not been ad mitted, the petitioner would have got a seat in the Institution of his choice.

(3.) IT is alleged in the petition that come direction was received after the examination had been held from the Government of India by those who managed the examination to the effect that all the reserved seats for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes should be filled by Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates without any refer ence to qualifying marks. It was alleged that persons receiving only 10% marks were ad mitted in the reserved seats. This paragraph again makes only a vague statement without placing any material from which the inference has been drawn by the petitioner. The facts therefore in this petition themselves are not sufficient for the consideration of the petition on merits.