SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Written statement filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

(2.) The petitioner has a grievance that his admission to LL.B. Course has been denied on the ground that at the relevant time along with his application, he did not produce the employer's certificate as the prospectus had required, although he was prepared to furnish the same at the time of counselling when it was pointed out that he had not appended the employer's certificate. It was admittedly a case where he was an employed person and the prospectus under clause 8 spelt out the documents/certificates/ testimonials to be attached with admission application form and it included also the employer's certificate in case of employee, if applicable.

(3.) The counsel argues that he was employed and it must be presumed that the certificate was always available with him. Indeed when it was informed that the employer's certificate was not appended, he assured the persons responsible for admission that he will bring the employer's certificate and he produced the same, but it was still refused to be accepted. The counsel would argue that he is a meritorious person having secured 4th rank and he also has a character certificate that shows his sterling character. I affirm, he is brilliant and of impeccable character but unfortunately that would not secure to him admission, for, he failed to observe what was necessary in the prospectus. It is not a question of presumption of whether he had an employer's certificate or not. The requirement in the prospectus ought to be complied with and unless it is a case that stipulation mentioned in the prospectus itself was unjustified or arbitrary, there cannot be a case for the petitioner to contend that irrespective of whether he filed the document of what was stated as necessary, he should be still given an opportunity to produce the document later. The counsel would also state that the prospectus required only the employer's certificate in case of male candidate and there was no such requirement for a female candidate. I find there is no objection taken in this regard except that the petitioner would state that the denial of admission to the petitioner without providing reasonable time to fulfill the condition was being violative of Article 14. It is not as if that any female candidate who was employed had gained admission without the production of the employer's certificate. The reasonableness of time for submission of certificate must be seen in the context of whether at the time of filing of the application form, there was no period left between the date of issuance of application form and the submission of application form. If there was sufficient gap available from the date of issue of application form to the date when the application form could be filled up and submitted, then it cannot be stated that there was no sufficient time for submission of the certificate. The requirement in the prospectus for submission of documents has a salutary purpose. They have to categorize the candidates depending on the credentials and the categories to which the candidates could be apportioned and there needs to be appropriate data available before candidates are called for counselling. Every fact of what is essential to consider a person under a particular category must give such proof as the conditions laid down in the application form stipulates. The requirement of an employer's certificate cannot be said to be unreasonable and if the petitioner did not append the same along with the application form, there could be no argument that he was prepared to submit it at the time of counselling.