SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Sanjeev Kumar appeared in the entrance test conducted for admission in degree/diploma course in department of Computer Science conducted by the Panjab University on 8. 7. 1995. 60 seats were advertised by the department of Computer Science, out of which 30 seats are for the degree course and 30 seats for the diploma course. The petitioner had made an application for appearing in the said test in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent University. The minimum eligibility requirement for the degree course is 60% marks and for the diploma course is 55% marks. 1,500 students appeared in the entrance test. The result of the entrance test was declared on 4. 7. 1995. The petitioner secured 77. 75 marks out of 100. He was placed at No. 26 in the merit list. On 26. 7. 1995, the petitioner was invited for interview for the degree/diploma course. The interviews were held on 4. 8. 1995. The petitioner had deposited the original Certificates in the office of respondent No. 2, i. e. Panjab University, Centre for Computer Science. The petitioner was duly interviewed. All the necessary Certificates and application forms were before the interview Committee. After interview, the petitioner was informed that he has been selected in the diploma course and has been placed at waiting list No. 6 in the degree course. The petitioner was told to deposit the necessary fees, which was duly done by the petitioner. On 9 and 10. 8. 1995 a notice was pasted on the Notice Board in the Department that since some seats had fallen vacant in the degree course, seven candidates on the waiting list can take admission slips and deposit the necessary fees, as they had been selected in the degree course. The petitioner duly deposited a sum of Rs. 993/- including Rs. 75/- as late fee for the degree course. He attended the classes of the degree course, which had started on 16. 8. 1995. However, on 24. 8. 1995, a letter was handed over to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 that due to some oversight, a mistake has been committed by the office, as the petitioner's marks are less than 60%, therefore his admission to M. C. A. Session 1995-1996 stands cancelled.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the said communication dated"24. 8. 1995 (annexure P-6) on the ground that the said order is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and therefore, liable to be quashed. No written statement has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, a Civil Miscellaneous No. 13318 of 1995 was filed by one Munish Kapoor son of Shri Som Nath Kapoor for being impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition. The said application was allowed and Munish Kapoor was impleaded as respondent-No. 3 by order dated 14. 12. 1995. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 3, it has been pleaded that the petitioner had admittedly obtained 59. 95% marks in the qualifying examination. His marks being less than the minimum eligibility marks (60%), he was not eligible to appear in the entrance test for degree course in Master of Computer Applications. Respondent No. 3 had obtained 68. 89% marks in B. Sc. i. e. the qualifying examination. However, on the basis of the result of the common entrance test, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 6 of the waiting list and respondent No. 3 was placed at Sr. No. 8 of the waiting list. One Ms. Anju Gupta was placed at Sr. No. 7 of the said list. Thereafter, the candidates upto Sr. No. 7 on the waiting list were given admission to the said degree course and respondent No. 3 being at No. 8 was left out. Thus, if the cancellation of the admission of the petitioner is upheld, then respondent No. 3 became entitled to be given admission to the degree course being at Sr. No. 8 of the waiting list. The /petitioner was, however, continuing with the studies in the degree course in view or the stay order granted by the Motion Bench on 29. 8. 1995.

(3.) RESPECTFULLY agreeing with the law laid down above, we find that there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of rounding off.