SANDEEP Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner after completion of his Schooling joined the five year LLB course in the respondent-University. The course in question is divided into two parts, the first two years being called the pre-Law years and the balance 3 years as the LL.B. Course. The petitioner appeared in the annual examination of the first year for the academic year 1994-95 and on the declaration of the result was shown as having secured compartment in English. He reappeared for the said paper in the main examination held in 1996 and in May 1997 but he was declared as having obtained a compartment (wrongly mentioned as failed in the petition). The petitioner applied for the re- evaluation of the result for the examination held in May 1997 and in the meanwhile cleared all the other papers in the 2nd year of the Pre-Law Course. In the meanwhile the result of the re-evaluation sought by the petitioner with respect to the English paper examination taken by him in May 1997 was declared on 5.11.1997 and he was declared as having passed. The petitioner accordingly made an application on 12.11.1997 for admission to the higher class as he had cleared all lower courses but the same was declined. Aggrieved thereby this petition has been filed seeking a direction ordering the respondent-University to give him admission to the LL.B. IV year course.

(2.) Notice of motion as issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been admitted by them that the petitioner had been declared as having passed in the English paper on re-evaluation and that he had applied for admission in the LL.B. Course on 12.11.1997 but admission had been denied to him by the respondent-University on the ground that he had applied late as the last date for amission to the course with late fees was 31.7.1997; the more so that it would not be possible for him to fulfil the requirement of attendance. It has also been pleaded that the Bar Council of India which was the Apex Body in matters pertaining to the law course had vide letter dated 26.7.1997 Annexure R-1 directed the University that no admission should be made after the cut off date for admission was over and that the University should strictly adhere to the norms for attendance prescribed by it. It has accordingly been pleaded that the respondent- university had accepted this guideline and was following it in all cases.

(3.) Shri Dhull, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the refusal of the respondent-University to grant admission to the petitioner for the course in question was contrary to Ordinance 6 framed by the University on the subject and as such the petitioner was entitled to admission on having been declared passed in the re-evaluation. Shri Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the University has, however, relied upon the written statement and has argued the matter on that basis.