DEEPAK NARULA Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kurukshetra University-respondent No. 1 issued a prospectus for admission to M.Sc. Computer Science (Software), two years full time programme course. The petitioner, being fully eligible for the same, applied within time and took the written test on 2.7.1998 and on the declaration of the result, was found to have qualified. The petitioner's name, however, did not figure in any of the lists of admitted candidates displayed on 21.7.1998, 24.7.1998 and 28.7.1998. The petitioner as also respondent No. 3 were present in the department on 30.7.1998 and were informed that if any seat fell vacant subsequently, the same would be filled in according to merit. The petitioner, therefore, visited the department on 18.8.1998 and found that respondent No. 3 who was lower to him in merit, had been granted admission, a day earlier and had been allowed to deposit her fee up to 19.8.1998. On enquiry, the petitioner received the information that all eligible candidates including the petitioner had been informed by letters posted under U.P.C., and through telegrams dated 13.8.1998 to attend the interview at 9 a.m. on 17.8.1998 but as the petitioner had not appeared on the date fixed for interview in response to these communications, the seat had been offered to respondent No. 3 who had been present. The petitioner, thereafter, met the authorities concerned and pointed out that the letter/telegram had been posted on 13.8.1998 but as the 14th/15th and 16th August, 1998 were holidays, no information with regard to the interview had been received by her (him ?) with the result that he could not attend the same. It was also pointed out that the letter under U.P.C. had, in fact, been delivered to him at about 4 a.m. on 18.8.1998 but the telegram had not been received till that date. The petitioner however received no redress from respondent No. 1. He has accordingly filed the present writ petition.

(2.) On notice of motion, a reply has been filed on behalf of the University and the broad facts averred by the petitioner have been admitted. It has been pointed out that letters under U.P.C. and telegrams had been despatched to Kumari Nanita Krishna, the present petitioner, and to Kumari Sunita against the one vacancy which had been created by vacation of the seat by Miss Puja Aggarwal on 12.8.1998 and as only Kumari Sunita had appeared on 17.8.1998, she had been granted admission. It has, however, been pointed out that respondent No. 3 had not deposited her dues up to 19.8.1998, and that the seat remained vacant as of now.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Malik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that taking the respondents case at its face value and holding it to be entirely correct, it was impossible for the petitioner to have attended the interview on 17.8.1998 at 9 a.m. as no information could have been received by him up to that date and time.