LAWS(P&H)-2014-4-315

SANJAY YADAV Vs. MD UNIVERSITY

Decided On April 04, 2014
SANJAY YADAV Appellant
V/S
Md University Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant filed the instant suit alleging that as per the prospectus for admission to B.Ed. Regular Course for the session 2002-03 issued by Rao Birender Singh College of Education, Rewari, he was eligible for Group 2 category, and thus, he applied for admission to the said Course, however, he was informed that he was not eligible for admission. Thereafter, the appellant approached the respondent-University and prayed that he be allowed to appear in the entrance test. However, he was not allowed to appear in the entrance test, and thus, he filed the instant suit seeking declaration against the respondent-University to the effect that he was eligible to appear in the entrance test for admission to B.Ed. Regular Course and that letter dated 23.05.2002 issued by the respondent-University was illegal. Further mandatory injunction was sought directing the respondent-University to allow the appellant to appear in the entrance test for admission to B.Ed. Regular Course or to hold fresh entrance test for him. The suit was contested on behalf of the respondent- University submitting that for appearing in the entrance test of B.Ed. (Regular) admission for the session 2002-03, a candidate was required to secure 45% marks in the Bachelor's/Master's Degree with at least one school subject at the Graduation level. It was further submitted that on receipt of admission form, it was discovered that the plaintiff-appellant was not possessing the requisite percentage of marks and thus, he was rightly declared ineligible vide letter dated 23.05.2002 and his admission form was rightly rejected because he had secured 43.1% marks in B.A. and 44.33% marks in M.A.

(2.) It will not be out of place to mention at this stage that the appellant sought interim relief in the Civil Suit for allowing him to appear in the entrance test; and the trial Court vide order dated 15.06.2002 rejected such prayer of the appellant.

(3.) However, on an appeal filed on behalf of the appellant, Additional District Judge-I, Rohtak vide his order dated 07.09.2002 allowed him admission subject to the final decision of the suit.