KUMARI ANKITA SINHA Vs. RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order, Annexure P/1 dated 11th January 2005 issued by the respondent No. 1, University cancelling the admission granted to the petitioner in B. E., (Bachelor of Engineering) course in the institute of respondent No. 2.

(2.) Petitioner had appeared in the Class XII examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education from Patna. She was a student of Patna Central SCH S. Vihar. According to the petitioner, examination was conducted in March 2004. She appeared in the examination but in the main examination she was declared as failed in two subjects, namely; Chemistry and Mathematics. Accordingly, as per rules of the Central Board of Secondary Education, she was permitted to take up in supplementary examination of any one of the two subjects. She appeared in the Mathematics subject and was declared as passed and marks sheet, Annexure P/2 was issued to her. According to the petitioner, as per the norms fixed by the Central Board of Secondary Education, a candidate who has passed any five subjects out of total six subjects is declared as passed in Class Xll examination and accordingly petitioner has been declared as passed in Class XII examination as is evident from, letter, Annexure P/3 dated 9th December 2004 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education to the Principal of respondent No. 2/institute.

(3.) After having passed the Class XII examination as indicated hereinabove, petitioner appeared in the counselling and was granted admission in B.E., First year course in the respondent No. 2 institute. She deposited the requisite fee and was pursuing the studies when all of a sudden by the impugned letter, respondents have cancelled admission of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that under the Pre-Engineering and Pharmacy Test Rules 2004 as contained in Annexure P.6. The only requirement under Rule 2.4.1.1, is that a candidate should have passed 10 + 2 examination from a recognized Board and petitioner having passed the aforesaid examination, it is argued that the petitioner is eligible to be admitted. Inviting my attention to the provisions of Rule 2.4.1.1, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is declared to have passed Class XII examination by the Central Board of Secondary Examination, the respondents cannot cancel her admission because she has failed in the subject of Chemistry. It is the case of the petitioner that rule does not contemplate passing in each subject. The rule only contemplates that a candidate should have passed 10 + 2 examination with subjects of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. Taking me through the provisions of the rule, Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are incorrectly interpreting the rules, and therefore, seeks quashing of the impugned order. Respondents have refuted the aforesaid. The State Government and the University concerned have categorically stated that a candidate to be eligible for admission in the B.E. course has to pass 10 + 2 examination conducted by a recognised Board by taking Chemistry, Mathematics and Physics as the main subjects and should have passed in all the three subjects. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner having failed in the subject of Chemistry cannot be deemed to have been passed Class XII, and therefore, is not eligible to seek admission in the B.E., course. That apart, inviting my attention to the provisions of Rule 2.3.9.2 sub-rule (i), Shri K. N. Gupta, learned senior counsel representing the University argued that only such candidates are eligible for admission in B.E., course who have passed Class XII main examination and not in the supplementary examination. Inter alia contending that petitioner has acquired qualification of Class XII as per rules of Central Board of Secondary Education by appearing in the supplementary examination, respondents contend that on this ground also admission of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, respondents contend that no case for interference is made out.