IITT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING Vs. ISHA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 25 complaints were filed by the private respondents against the appellant, State of Himachal Pradesh, Director Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh University and one Smt. Rama Sinha. Since common questions of law and fact were involved in all these cases before the District Forum below, therefore, vide order dated 7.5.2003, those were consolidated with the complaint titled as Isha Nand Vs. State of H.P. & others. At the time of hearing all these appeals, learned counsel for the parties were not at variance that the reply filed in this case has been taken to be the reply in all other complaints. Though in each case separate order has been passed on the basis of the reply of the respondent in the complaint of Ms. Isha Nand Vs. State of H.P. being Complaint No. 1/2003.As such we have taken up of the file of Ms. Isha Nand and are passing this order in Appeal No. 170/2006, which shall govern the rest of the cases as well, i.e. Appeal Nos. 90/2006 to 103/2006, 121/2006 and 161/2006 to 170/2006, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases.

(2.) Appellant is an Engineering College at Kala Amb. Private respondents in all these appeals were the applicants or being admitted to Information Technology ours to second year of 4 year B -Tech degree course in the said discipline. Copy of this notice is Annexure R -1 copy of which is at page 25 of the complaint file. Director Technical Education had in no uncertain terms had mentioned in this Annexure that admission to the course for the academic session 2000 -01 "as per the Honble High Court of Delhi, " In this advertisement under the heading seats to be filed, it is again clearly mentioned besides other things" subject to decision of Honble Court".

(3.) All the private respondents applied for admission to the course in question and they in fact were admitted is another fact regarding which there is no controversy raised by the appellant. All complaints were contested by the appellant.