HEMANT MITTAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to allot "free seats" to them in place of "payment seats" and to refund the excess fee recovered from them.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that petitioner No. 1, Hemant Mittal has graduated from Jiwaji University, Gwalior and petitioner No. 2 Nandkishore Singh has done so from A. P. S. University, Rewa. They appeared in M. P. Management Joint Entrance Test, 1997 for admission in M. B. A. . They obtained 296 and 244 marks respectively. They appeared in IInd phase of counselling at Bhopal conducted by respondent No. 2, Director, Technical Education, on 10-9-1997 and opted for admission against "payment seats". They were allotted V. N. S. Institute of Management, Bhopal, respondent No. 3. They were each required to pay a fee of Rs. 44910/- in the first year. The fee for free seat is about Rs. 15000/ -. They were ineligible to appear in the Ist and IInd phase of counselling for admission against the free seats as their marks were less than the cut-off marks of 378. The IIIrd phase of counselling was held at Institute level on 8-10-1997. On that date 18 candidates were given admission in V. N. S. Institute against free seats as per details given in minutes Annexure R- III/5. In this list the marks of six candidates are less than the petitioner No. 1 and of two candidates less than the petitioner No. 2. It is also mentioned in those minutes that the petitioner No. 2 was not found eligible for free seat due to lack of fulfilment of "domicile requirement" as he had graduated in 1990. The petitioner No. 1 did not appear in this counselling. They made several representations to the respondents to adjust them against free seats but these were rejected.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that having secured higher marks than some of the candidates who have been granted admission against free seats, they are entitled to be adjusted against free seats. The action of the respondents is unreasonable and discriminatory. It was their duty to act fairly.