G GIRL RAJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 24843 of 1998 dt. 20-11-1998. By the said order the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable inasmuch as the respondents against whom the writ was sought are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a graduate having passed B,E. in II Division securing 52.5% marks. The third respondent issued a Public Notification in 'Employment News 7-13 February, 1998 inviting applications for admission to Post-graduate Diploma in Management and Information Technology (for short 'PGDMIT') which is a 2-year course. The eligibility criteria for admission to the said course is a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering and Master of Computer Applications with atleast 60% aggregate marks for O.Cs. and 55% marks for S.C. and S.T. candidates. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and though he secured only 52.5% marks, he submitted his application for the said course. The petitioner was called for the written test at Hyderabad and on being successful he was also called for the Group Discussion and Interview which was held at New Delhi and the petitioner appeared for the same. The third respondent published the Merit list of the said Entrance Examination covering written test, group discussion and interview and the petitioner stood first in merit among the waiting list candidates under the S.C.Category. But surprisingly, the third respondent failed to give admission to the petitioner and on the contrary he granted admission to candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioner. Though he submitted several representations to the respondents explaining the injustice caused to him, nothing fruitful was forthcoming. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in granting him seat in the said PDGMIT Course, he filed the writ petition. But the same was dismissed as not maintainable. As against the said order, this writ appeal is preferred.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is three-fold. Firstly, she contend that the learned single Judge erred in holding that this Court cannot issue a writ against the respondents who are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Andhra Pradesh. She contended that in view of the amendment to Article 226 of the Constitution, the judgments relied upon by the learned Judge are no longer good law. Secondly, the learned Counsel contends that even though the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification that was contemplated in the said Notification, he was called for the written test and on being successful he was also called for the group discussion and interview. In the merit list he stood first. Having called the petitioner to appear for the examination, the authorities are duty-bound to admit him as he was successful and stood first in the merit list, even though he did not possess the requisite qualification and the eligibility criteria as per the notification. Therefore, having allowed the appellant to attend the written test, group discussion and interview, the authorities are estopped from holding that the candidate is not qualified to seek admission. Thirdly, she contends that even if any interview is contrary to the rule or instruction, the same will not disentitle the appellant to seek admission as there was acquiescence on the part of the authorities in the appellant's selection process as to his qualification.