ASHISH KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a student of +3 Commerce 1st year Degree Course, has filed this petition seeking for a direction to opposite party no.2 to admit him in the receiving college pursuant to Annexures-2 and 3 dated 14.11.2014 and 1.12.2014 respectively, whereby permission has been granted by both the relieving college and receiving college duly approved by the Utkal University.

(2.) The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner after passing +2 Commerce course in the year 2014 from P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda, was admitted into +3 1st year Commerce Course in Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki during the session 2014-15. He being a permanent resident of Khurda town and is suffering from Bronchitis with Asthama, it was difficult on his part to prosecute his studies at Banki. Consequently, he applied for transfer from Banki (Autonomous College), Banki to P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda as per the resolution of the Government of Odisha in Higher Education Department dated 30.09.2014 in the prescribed form by depositing the requisite fees before the Utkal University. In the application vide Annexure-2 certificate has been granted by the receiving college, namely, P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda, on 13.11.2014 indicating that a seat is available in +3 1st year Commerce class with subjects taken by the candidate in the former college. On 14.11.2014, the relieving college, namely, Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki has issued no objection to issue CLC to enable the petitioner to get admission in the receiving college, where a seat is lying vacant. The petitioner submitted the application before the Utkal University for granting approval of transfer with requisite fees. Considering the same the University granted necessary permission for transfer from Banki (Autonomous) College, Banki vide Annexure-3 to enable the petitioner to get himself admitted in +3 1st year Commerce Course in P.N. (Autonomous) College, Khurda with the same subject as taken in the former college vide order dated 1.12.2014. The petitioner produced the same before opposite party no.2, but for some reason or other, opposite party no.2 did not admit the petitioner. Hence this application.

(3.) Mr.S.K.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that having granted necessary permission on the basis of which everything has been acted upon in accordance with law by the respective colleges and also by the University, the action of opposite party no.2 in not admitting the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and hit by the principles of estoppels, more particularly, it is urged that the opposite party no.2 having made entries in Annexure-2 that a seat is available in +3 1st year Commerce class with subjects taken by the candidate in the former college, basing upon which the relieving college had granted necessary permission to grant necessary CLC to take admission in the receiving college, which the University has permitted, at this point of time, the opposite party no.2 should not remain silent over the matter instead of acting on the same. He further submits that because of change of Principal in the college of opposite party no.2, the petitioner is deprived of getting admission into the said college. In support of his submission, Mr.Das has relied upon the judgments of this Court as well as the apex Court in B.L. Sreedhar and others. V. K.M. Munireddy (Dead) and others, 2003 AIR(SC) 578, Miss Reeta Lenka v. Berhampur University and another, 1992 2 OrissaLR 341, David C. Jhan v. Principal, Ispat College, Rourkela and others, 1984 1 OrissaLR 564, Ambika Prasad Mohanty v. Orissa Engineering College and another, 1989 1 OrissaLR 440, Dr. (Smt.) Pranaya Ballari Mohanty v. Utkal University and others, 2014 1 OrissaLR 226, Rajanikanta Priyadarshy v. Utkal University, W.P.(C) 22918 of 2013 disposed of on 23.12.2014.