TARA CHAND Vs. CENTRAL SEAT ALLOCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per case of the petitioner, Tara Chand, he, after clearing the Senior Secondary Examination on 28.05.2017, 'Registered/Locked choices for Seat Allotment' and paid participation fees. He was provisionally allotted seat in respondent No.2-Institute. He also paid the seat acceptance fees besides being opting for 'Floating option'. However, his name was not displayed in the second round of counselling held on 01.08.2019. He received an e-mail dated 04.08.2019 stating that his seat had been cancelled as he did not furnish his latest OBC Certificate. Accordingly, he was not allotted seat in the last counselling. As per his case, he followed up the matter with respondent authorities through e-mail and thereafter, served a legal notice requesting to justify the reason for cancellation of his allotted seat and admission. He also filed a Civil Writ Petition No.14395 of 2019 before the Rajasthan High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.09.2019 with liberty to file fresh one within appropriate jurisdiction. Thereafter, the present petition was filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected, whereas, he has already deposited the requisite fees i.e the participation fees and seat acceptance fees. The petitioner also opted for the "Floating Seat"? option. Learned counsel also submits that in view of provisions for allotment of "Floating Seat"?, it is the right of consideration given to the candidates if a higher preference in the given choices in any institute is available. In case, a higher choice is not available/allotted in the next round, he/she will have to continue with the currently accepted academic program. Learned counsel also submits that the name of the petitioner was not called, whereas, as per rank, he was eligible for stream of "Electrical Engineering"? in the second counselling. Learned counsel further submits that the rank of the petitioner under the Open category was 82550 for the course opted by him at Sr. No.326, which was within the limit. He should have been called for the second counselling but still was not called. Learned counsel also submits that neither any reason was given nor his representation was responded. Only, through e-mail, he was informed that his seat was cancelled as he did not furnish his latest OBC certificate. At the end, learned counsel submits that the delay has occurred because the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court but liberty was given to him to approach the appropriate place of jurisdiction, where respondent No.2-Institute is situated.

(3.) We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the documents available on the file. The facts of the case are not disputed.