PARMA NAND BHUTANI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction or order is sought to admit the petitioner as a student in the day classes of the Law Faculty in LL. B. (Previous).

(2.) The petitioner passed his Matriculation Examination as long ago as the year 1936. He then joined service and is still employed drawing a salary of Rs. 400per mensem. He obtained the B. A. Degree of the Punjab University appearing as a private candidate under regulation 8 of that University which enables a candidate not to appear in all the subjects at one examination. In June 1959 the University of Delhi, respondent No. 1, invited applications for admission to the different classes in the Faculty of Law. After specifying the date for the receipt of application and specifying the age limit, it was stated that admission to the different classes would be made on selection from eligible candidates on a scrutiny of the applications and according to merits and where circumstances required after an interview and only up to the accommodation facilities available (Annexure 'E' tot he affidavit of the Dean dated 11-9-1959). The petitioner submitted his application on 3rd July 1959 but when the lists of selected candidates were published between 15-7-1959 to 31-7-1959, the name of the petitioner was not included among those who were admitted. It was in these circumstances that the present petition was filed on 31st July, 1959.

(3.) It is common ground that the B. A. Degree of the Punjab University under Regulation 8 would entitled the petitioner to be qualified for admission tot the LL. B. Degree course and the main grievance of the petitioner is that admission could not have been refused in his case as he had obtained 52.2 percent marks which were more than the marks obtained by certain candidates who had been admitted and who had also passed the B. A. examination of the Punjab University though not under Regulation 8. The case of the petitioner is that no distinction could be made between those candidates who had passed under regulation 8 and others who had passed in the ordinary way offering all the subjects at one time.