SASMITA PALEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner having been denied admission to the 1st year Diploma in Engineering under sports quota has filed this application praying for appropriate relief.

(2.) THE petitioner passed High School Certificate Examination in the first division in April, 1993, The State Government in the appropriate department have been extending concession in the matter of admission to different educational institutions to the persons participating in sports. The case of the petitioner is that she represented Orissa State team in the VIth National (Senior) ATYA PATYA Championship held in New Delhi in July, 1994. She accordingly applied for admission in 1st Year Diploma in Engineering during the Session 1994 -95 under the sports quota, she was wrongly not selected from the sports quota. Being aggrieved by such refusal, the petitioner along with one Ritan Kumar Pradhan filed a writ application bearing O.J.C. 6354 of 1994. This Court without going into the merit of the case, by order dated 19.6.1996 disposed of the matter because by that time, the academic session for which the petitioner applied, had already elapsed. Following the publication of advertisements for admission to the Diploma in Engineering for the Session 1996 -97, the petitioner again made application for admission under sports quota. As she did not receive may intimation from the opp. parties, she along with Ritan Kumar Pradhan filed O.J.C. No. 8442 of 1996 praying for a direction to the opp. parties to give them admission under sports quota for the 1st year Diploma in Engineering. During the pendency of the said case, Ritan Kumar Pradhan was admitted in the 1st year course. The opp. party No. 4 filed an affidavit stating that the application of the petitioner for admission was rejected as she was found over -aged. This Court on consideration of the sports certificate, passed orders on 10.1.1997 in the aforesaid O.J.C. 8443 of 1996 to consider the question of relaxing the age or condone the over -age of the petitioner on her making representation for the purpose. The petitioner, accordingly, made representation. The Government in the Industries Department letter No. 5831 dated 6.3.1997 at Annexure -14 rejected the representation by observing as follows :

(3.) ON perusal of the Information Brochure for admission to Engineering Schools at Annexure -6, it appears that certain categories of sportsmen are entitled to be admitted irrespective of the marks secured by them subject to eligibility. We may extract the relevant portion of the Information Brochure to drive home the point which reads thus :