SUNDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and have perused the record. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he had applied for admission in the B.Ed. course and after counselling conducted by the respondent-University, he was allotted the respondent No. 4-College. THE petitioner thereafter deposited the entire fees and continued his studies of B.Ed. course. At the time when the petitioner was to appear in the examination of B.Ed., the respondent-University refused to issue the admit card to the petitioner and to permit the petitioner appear in the examination on the ground that the petitioner had less than 45% marks in the B.A. examination. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-University that the Rules provide that the candidate should possess 45% marks and the petitioner had only 44.7% marks in B.A. examination, thus the respondent-University was right in refusing to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination.

(3.) BE that as it may, since the petitioner is not guilty of having committed any fraud or misrepresentation and he had submitted his correct marks-sheet of B. A. examination before the respondent-University, and University after considering the same, had granted admission to the petitioner and allotted the respondent No. 4-College after proper counselling, the petitioner cannot, in such facts, be said to be at fault. The respondent-University cannot, at the last stage, when the petitioner has already attended the classes and is now to appear in the examination, refuse to grant permission to the petitioner to appear in the examination on such ground, which was known to it right from the beginning when the petitioner had sought admission. Thus, in equity as well as in the interest of justice, it is a fit case for grant of mandamus, directing the respondent-University to permit the petitioner to appear in the B.Ed. examination. Learned counsel for the respondent-University states that the next examinations are likely to be held in July, 2009.