AKANKSHA ARYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 3; and Sri P.P. Chaudhary, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that, according to the result of Joint Entrance Examination (Polytechnic) 2014, she was allotted Government Polytechnic Saharanpur (Diploma Institute), Saharanpur and was invited in Phase -II of first counselling. As per the allotment letter, the petitioner was required to deposit security fee of Rs. 3,005/ - through E -Challan by 19.07.2014 which, on account of website problem, could not be deposited as the print out of the E -Challan could be obtained only by 22.07.2014 and when the petitioner approached the concerned institution on 23.07.2014, she was required to approach again on 26.07.2014. Thereafter, the city of Saharanpur was put under curfew and remained so till 04.08.2014 and the institution denied admission to her on the ground that the date of the first counselling was over. Consequently, on 04.08.2014, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent No.2 (Secretary, Joint Entrance Examination Council, Lucknow) to take appropriate decision in the matter of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently, on 13.08.2014, the respondent No.2 had addressed a letter to all the Principals of various Government Polytechnics, within the State of U.P., stating therein that on account of technical difficulties, there had been delay in depositing the security amount of Rs. 3,000/ - in the bank and, therefore, students have been approaching the Council for issuance of appropriate directions, accordingly, after considering the difficulties of the students, a decision has been taken that the students may be admitted, even without requirement of security deposit, up to 14.08.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the above relaxation granted by the respondent No.2, vide letter dated 13th August, 2014, the petitioner again approached the respondent No.2 on 14.08.2014 with a prayer that she may be allowed admission but no decision was taken and therefore the petitioner, who was placed higher in the rank than the candidates who have been admitted in the second counselling, was wrongly denied the benefit of admission.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 29.08.2014, the following order was passed: -