SURINDER RATHI Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution I oflndia has been preferred by the petitioner against the action of the respondent-University I declining admission to him in L.L.B. 5 Years Professional Course.

(2.) Upon notice the respondents have filed a detailed reply. The undisputed facts I relevant for the decision of the present writ petition are that the petitioner had completed I his 10+2 examination through Central Board of Secondary Education securing 71-4% I marks. The petitioner being desirous of joining the law course appeared in the entrance I lest conducted by the Co-ordinator, Kurukshetra University on 13.7.1997. The petitioner bad cleared the entrance test by securing nearly 48% marks. Merit list was prepared in accordance with the terms and conditions of the brochure. The first list of the candidates to be admitted to the course was displayed on 29.7.1997, second list was displayed on 5.8.1997 and third list was displayed on 12.8.1997. As the seats still remained vacant and the seats which were reserved for different categories except Scheduled Castes also remained unfilled, consequently were thrown to the candidates belonging to the general category. The final list of admission was prepared on 21.8.1997 and the names of 25 candidates were displayed as are suit of this final list on 22.8.1997. The students were required by the office to pay fees on that date.

(3.) The divergence in the case of the respective parties comes at this juncture. According to the petitioner he was available on 21.8.1997 and he ought to have been granted admission by the respondents on 21.8.1997 or 22.8.1997. According to the petitioner the respondents have erred in not granting admission to the petitioner on that very day and there after the respondents could not have granted any admission to the candidates even if they were higher in merit then the petitioner. On the other hand, it is pleaded by the respondents that on 21.8.1997 the petitioner was present at the premises of the College, but his merit was very low and consequently he could not have been offered admission on that date. The authorities had displayed the list of 25 candidates on 22.8.1997, but as three selected candidates did not deposit their fees on 22.8.1997 under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, out of the list of 130 candidates prepared in order of merit on 21.8.1997, 9 candidates were called and then three candidates higher in merit were given the seat including the candidates who for some reasons could not deposit fee on 22.8.1997. It is further pleaded by the respondents that the last candidate who was granted admission after 22.8.1997 had attained 61% aggregate marks while the petitioner had 59.7% marks and no person lower in merit than the petitioner has been admitted to the course.