RAJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated February 18,1995 by which their admission to the Diploma in Education Course has been cancelled on the ground that they wee not admitted on the basis of merit. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioners were admitted to the Diploma in Education Course in the year 1992. They appeared in the Part I examination held in the year 1993. Thereafter they took Part II examination held in the year 1994. The petitioners' result of Part I was declared. They were given provisional certificates. After the petitioners had appeared in the Part II Examination in July 1994, they were given show cause notices dated November 22, 1994 calling upon them to explain as to why their admission be not cancelled. The only ground indicated in the show cause notices was that on enquiry it has been reported that they were not entitled to admission on their merit. The petitioners submitted their respective replies. Thereafter by two separate orders dated February 18, 1995 it has been held that the petitioners were not entitled to admission on the basis of their merit. Their replies, which had been submitted in response to the show cause notices, have been rejected. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They challenge the orders on different grounds which shall be presently discussed.

(3.) The respondents contest the petitioners' claim. They have filed a written statement. It has been averred that the p Htioners were admitted in the year 1992. However, some irregularities were committed by then Selection Committee and the Head of the Institution. A complaint to this effect was received in the office of the Director, Secondary Education Haryana, Chandigarh i.e. respondent No.2 and the enquiry was conducted by the Additional Director. As a result of this enquiry, the persons at fault were suspended. Departmental action against them is being taken. It has been further averred that the petitioners got only 57.55% and 63.20% marks whereas the last candidate who had been admitted on the basis of merit had secured 66.20% marks. The petitioners were wrongly admitted and as such their admission has been cancelled after giving them reasonable opportunity to show cause. The respondents further allege that the petitioners got admission "by adopting deceitful means by connivance with the then Headmistress." On these grounds, the respondents pray that the writ petition be dismissed.