LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-55

RAHUL TIWARI Vs. ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ALLAHABAD

Decided On December 01, 2006
RAHUL TIWARI Appellant
V/S
ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ALLAHABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give him admission in B. Sc. (Mathematics ).

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he appeared in the admission test and had obtained 81 marks. He had given three preferences. The first preference was for Physics, Chemistry and Math; the second preference was Physics, Statistics and Math; and the third preference was for Physics, Math and Photography. As per his merit, the petitioner was offered the subjects of his third preference. A specific condition for admission in B. Sc. as given in the prospectus was that the annual fees of Rs. 1074/- would be required to be deposited by the candidate at the time of seeking admission, and in case if the candidate seeks admission with Photography as a subject, he would be required to deposit an extra fees of Rs. 2000/ -. Admittedly the petitioner did not deposit the requisite fees for admission in B. Sc. with Physics, Math and Photography as the subjects. However, thereafter he changed his mind and has filed this writ petition with the prayer for a direction to grant him admission in B. Sc, on the ground that the candidates below him in merit have been granted admission.

(3.) THE other important ground for refusing to interfere in this writ petition is the report of the Chairman of the Admission Committee submitted on 17-8-2006. In the said report it has been categorically mentioned that after the admission was closed, the petitioner, alongwith some other persons, came and misbehaved with the Chairman and Members of the Admission Committee and also threatened them. THE Chairman and Members of the Admission Committee are Senior Members of the faculty and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve their report. In such facts, this Court would not be inclined to exercise its extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction in favour of a person who has misbehaved with the members of the Admission Committee.