ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allot the Branch of Electronics Engineering to him, in any institute, covered by the Combined Entrance Examination, 1993, in any one of the vacancy, occurring in the aforesaid Branch due to drop-outs or otherwise, ignoring the Rule 2 (11) and Rule 15.3 of the Information Brochure The petitioner's case in short is that a Combined Entrance Examination is conducted for admission for the first year of all Engineering Colleges situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh and for the vacancy reserved for the candidate in the Regional Engineering College situated outside the State.

(2.) For admissions for the year 1993 an admission committee was constituted. The opposite party No. 2 conducted a Combined Entrance Examination, 1993, and prepared a merit list of the candidates for making admissions in various branches of the various institutes. The petitioner's case is that he appeared in the examination, 1993, and has secured rank in merit list at Serial No. 751. His case is that the allocation of particular branch to a particular candidate in a particular institute is covered by Rule 15.3 of the Information Brochure (CEE) 1993. The petitioner was called by a letter dated 15th July, 1993 for counselling on Aug. 11, 1993 for the purpose of allocation of branch and institute to him. The petitioner appeared before opposite party No. 2 on 11-8-1993. The counselling took place on 12th Aug., 1993. The petitioner submitted his preference for the Branch and the Institute on the prescribed form, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No 2 to the writ petition To facilitate the petitioner to fill up the preference form, a chart was provided giving the codes allotted to the various branches as well as to the Institutes. A copy of the code chart is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner gave his first preference to the branch of Electronics Engineering in the Institute, GBPEC, Pauri Garhwal alongwith other options. The petitioner's case is (hat at the time of counselling he was told by the Chairman/Coordinator of the Admission Committee, opposite party No. 3, that none of the branches preferred by him was available either in the institute preferred by him or in any other institute and the petitioner was asked to give other alternative. The petitioner's further case is that in these circumstances he gave his preference for the Branch Man Made Fibre Technology available at GCTT, Kanpur. The petitioner has been denied allocation of Branch of Electronic Engineering whereas the other candidates have been allotted the said branch of Electronics Engineering on the same date who have obtained a lower rank than the petitioner. The petitioner has given the details of the candidates, who had been allotted the branch of Electronics Engineering and who were lower in rank than the petitioner, in Paragraph 13 of the petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non allocation of branch of Electronics Engineering and the allocation of another branch which is Man Made Fibre Technology.

(3.) The opposite parties have filed an application for vacation of the interim order passed on 17-9-1993 by which one seat in the Electronics Engineering was directed to be kept in abeyance The case of the opposite parties is that the petitioner has declined to join the Electronics Branch at Pauri Garhwal and the persons shown in Paragraph 13 of the writ petition have indicated their willingness to join Electronics Branch at Pauri Garhwal. The opposite parties in the counter-affidavit have indicated that the petitioner had already joined Government Central Textile Institute, Kanpur, in the branch of Man Made Fibre Technology and the petitioner had cancelled the said fact. It has been urged on behalf of the opposite parties that in view of the condition indicated in Paragraph 2 (II) of the Information Brochure of CEE 1993, the petitioner having taken admission at the Institute of Kanpur is not entitled to be transferred from the said institute on any ground whatsoever. The further plea of the opposite parties is that under Para 15.3 of the said Brochure it has specifically been indicated that ' no subsequent change of institution shall be permitted under any circumstance's". However, in case of some vacancies occurring in an institution on account of dropouts, the candidate may exercise his/ her option in writing for change of branch, which will be allotted subject to availability in accordance with his/her merit position in the CEE within the same institution only. It has further been provided that the candidate has to be physically present for the counselling on the date and time specified. If, for whatever reason, the candidate fails to present himself/herself for the counselling on the date and time specified, he/she will not be considered for seat allotment and his/her candidature will be forfeited. As noted herein above the petitioner's allegation is that at the time of the counselling he was informed that no seat of his preference and the institute was available. This fact has, however, been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties.