VIKAS DIXIT Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 28.08.2013 (Annexure P6) whereby the admission of the petitioner in M.Tech. -I (Mechnical) had been cancelled. The reason given for cancellation in the letter reads as under:

(2.) THE facts of the case would go on to show that the petitioner took admission with the respondents No.3 and 4 - Institute in M.Tech -I(Mechanical), which is a 2 year course and thereafter, since he had not given the detailed marksheets of the qualifying examination, namely, the Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, he was asked to submit the said certificate vide letter dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure R3/1) by the said institute where he had taken admission. The respondent -University, on 17.11.2012, asked for removing the discrepancies relating to various students in which the name of the petitioner also figured, for want of the detailed marks certificate (for short, the 'DMC). On 07.12.2012, the institute again intimated and pasted on the notice board the requirement of the DMC. The discrepancies regarding other students who had supplied their certificates was forwarded to the University by the institute but the petitioner had never submitted the DMC. Eventually, on supply of the DMC, the institute forwarded the same to the University on 03.06.2013 (Annexure R3/9).

(3.) IN the provisional certificate, which was supplied by the petitioner (Annexure P2), dated 30.05.2013, it showed that he had passed the final examination of Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, conducted during May/June, 2011. The DMC is also dated 28.05.2013, which showed that he had passed the Eight Semesters. It is pertinent to mention that admittedly, the cut -off date for having passed the B.Tech. course for taking admission in M.Tech. course was 25.09.2012. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner had never passed the examination before 25.09.2012 but had managed to take admission with the respondents No.3 and 4 - Institute, by assuring them that he would supply the certificate and by assuring them that he had passed the said B.Tech. course which apparently, he only qualified after the cut off date and thus, was never eligible to take the admission. This is the categorical stand taken by the respondents No.3 and 4 and also by the University. It has further been averred that, now, the petitioner had taken admission in the M.Tech. course, i.e., for the year 2013 -14 which would be clear from Annexure R3/11. By hoodwinking the institute and giving out the false assurances that he had passed the B.Tech. course, he had taken admission and continued studying and giving examination in the said institute and thus, concealed material facts.