(1.) THE short point involved in this matter is as to whether the writ petitioner was entitled to be considered for counseling for Common Entrance Test 2013 (CET -2013) even though the petitioner had not secured 50% of the mark in 10+2 Examination and thus was not eligible to get admission in the M.B.A.(M.S.) 5 years course run by the University Teaching Department(UDT) (hereinafter referred to as 'University').
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she participated in the Common Entrance Examination conducted in 2013 by the Registrar General, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya for admission to M.B.A.(M.S.) course run by the University despite the fact that she had secured only 49.2% marks in 10+2 examination. The petitioner secured All India Rank 36 in the Common Entrance Test 2013 (CET -2013) conducted by the respondents. It was also submitted that the petitioner also represented Indore Division in various athletes at State level and won several medals for the same. She was directed to appear on 29.06.2013 before the respondents for counseling. However, when she appeared for the counseling for the admission she was surprised to know that the respondents did not allotted any seat to the petitioner inspite of her merit and the reason as disclosed to her was that her aggregate marks in the 12th Board examination was 49.2% whereas minimum marks required was 50%.
(3.) THE Margdarshak Siddhanth are also annexed with Annexure P -3. The Margdarshak Siddhanth nowhere goes to show that the marks assigned to a candidate for sports quota can only be used for the purpose of eligibility. Para 13 of the Margdarshak Siddhanth are reproduced hereunder: - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........