ABHILASH KUMAR Vs. H P KRISHI VISHVA VIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five petitioners, namely, Sarvshri Abhilash Kumar, Brijesh Pratap, Vishal Thakur, Vinay Rana and Rajnish Sharma, having been unable to seek admission to the B. V. Sc. and AH course in the H. P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the University), had approached this Court by way of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 7-9-1998, filed as Annexure PA to the writ petition, as subsequently rectified by the Board of Management of the University on 17-10-1998, insofar as it purports to give benefit of reservation to the wards of deceased employees of the University in B. V. Sc. and AH course, while recommending the names of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 for admission to the said course by applying the principles of severality. Consequently, the admission granted to the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 on 12-10-1998 in the first year of B. V. Sc. and AH course was also sought to be set aside. A further direction was sought to admit the petitioners to the said course on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the Combined Entrance Test held on 14-6-1998.

(2.) The writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 16-12-1998 with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The admissions granted to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to the first year of B. V. Sc. and AH course on 12-10-1998 were set aside and quashed. While allowing the writ petition and setting aside the admissions granted to the respondents Nos. 2 to 5, the Division Bench further indicted the Vice-Chancellor of the University Mr. Prem Kumar Khosla, (though name not indicated and hereinafter referred to as the respondent) and commended to the Chancellor to take appropriate action against all those concerned in the case, irrespective of their status or position in the University, in accordance with law. The respondent, in the view of the Division Bench was to be further made responsible to bear the liability of costs awarded, for the role he seems to have played. However, this aspect of the matter was also left to the discretion of the Chancellor to decide.

(3.) It was observed by the Division Bench of this Court, as under :