AMIT CHHIKARA Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.09.2013 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking admission to the Masters of Physical Education Course (M.P.Ed) conducted by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is the say of the appellant that respondent Nos. 5 to 15 were lower in the merit list to the appellant and their admission is contrary to the rules contained in the Handbook of Information for 2013 -14 while maintaining the name of the appellant on the top of the waiting list. The admission for the M.P.Ed. Course was based on a Common Entrance Test and the pre -requisite was that the candidates should have passed the graduation examination in the same line. The appellant having appeared in the 2nd Semester of the examination of the B.P.Ed. Course in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in 2013 applied for the Entrance Test held on 17.6.2013 and secured 42 rank. The last date for submission of the application form was 6.7.2013, which had to include the result of the qualifying degree examination. However, since the result of the appellant has not been declared by that date, the application was submitted without the result of the 2nd Semester of B.P.Ed. The appellant is stated to have also cleared the Physical Endurance Test on 17.7.2013.

(2.) THE final counselling is stated to have taken place on 20.7.2013, which was a Saturday as the result of the parent Panjab University had not been declared till 17.7.2013, when the counselling was initially fixed. The appellant claims that he sought the confidential result on 22.7.2013 from M.D.U., which was Monday and was received and submitted on the same date, but in the merit list of admission displayed in the evening of 23.7.2013, the name of the appellant did not figure. The appellant claims that giving due weightage to the academic performance, the score of the appellant was 64.28% while the last candidate in the general category, who was given admission, had scored 62.14%. The name of the appellant was kept at Sr. No. 1 in the revised waiting list even though persons having less marks had been given admission.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge opined that the result of the appellant, which became available on 22.7.2013, could not have been considered because the merit list had already been prepared and finalised on 20.7.2013, including the waiting list itself. On 24.7.2013, the admission process was over, the waiting list so prepared of those candidates who could not procure admission due to lower rank and five candidates from this waiting list were accommodated in the vacant seats available due to non -filling of reserved seats and the seats being converted into the open category.