ANURADHA YADAV Vs. BARKATULL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought following reliefs:

(2.) The contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Petitioner had undertaken admission in R.K.D.F. Homeopathic Medical College and Research Centre at Bhopal in the year 2008 and she had studied for 11/2 years. The Petitioner also submitted requisite examination-form and it was informed to her that the roll number will be given at the time of examination. However, when she appeared in the examination, the roll number was not provided to her and it was informed that she is not having essential qualification to appear in the examination and hence she was not permitted to appear in the examination. Thereafter, this petition was filed and on 10.08.2010 an interim order was passed by this Court permitting her to appear in the examination. In this manner, she appeared in the examination but her result has not yet been declared because there was a specific order of this Court not to declare her result.

(3.) The contention of Shri Dubey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that for no fault of her, Petitioner cannot be deprived for appearing in examination, who had already undergone her studies for 11/2 years. Learned Counsel further submits that Petitioner did not conceal any material fact which was required to be submitted and she also disclosed her age and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot be deprived of from appearing in the examination. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the two decisions of the Supreme Court, they are Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, 1986 AIR(SC) 1448 and Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and Ors., 1989 AIR(SC) 823.