AVINASH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no dispute that in order to appear in the Joint Engineering Entrance Test conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Delhi, Guwahati, Kanpur, Kharagpur, Madras and Roorkee, a candidate is required to pass qualifying examination conducted by recognized Central/State Board or Institutions after completion of 10+2 years of study. The writ petitioner herein passed such examination in 2005. In terms of the brochure published for conduct of such examination in the year 2005, petitioner, then appearing in such qualifying examination, was entitled to sit in such examination conducted in the year 2005. He did not appear in such examination. In 2006 the eligibility for candidates to appear in such Entrance Examination stood altered. By reason thereof a candidate appearing in the qualifying examination in the year 2006 was entitled to appear in such Entrance Examination and he could also appear in one more such examination. It was made clear in the brochure that the candidate who has passed qualifying examination in 2005 will have his last chance to appear in such Entrance Examination to be conducted in 2006. Petitioner appeared in Entrance Examination 2006, but did not succeed.

(2.) IN the present writ petition the petitioner is contending that up to the year 2005 there was no restriction and accordingly a candidate, who is qualifying or has qualified before, could appear in the Entrance Examination. It is being contended that there was no restriction in the matter of failure and accordingly a person who has failed successively in such Entrance Examination was not barred.from appearing in the next of such examination. It was submitted that there is no just rational behind limiting the right to appear in such Entrance Examination to two of them and that too one during the year of completion of the qualifying examination. Although, the 2006 brochure does not suggest that the candidates must appear in one of such Entrance Examinations as available to them in the year when the candidates are appearing in the qualifying examination, but the same is clear from the brochure of 2007 which makes it abundantly clear that one of the two examinations in which the candidates may appear should be the one held during the year they are appearing in the qualifying examination and the next in immediate succeeding year. In the counter affidavit, although in so many words reasons for curtailing the right to appear in successive examinations has not been mentioned, but the fact remains that this curtailment has been introduced to achieve the object of ensuring that the students entering the Engineering Colleges are of same age and to discourage the unworthy aspirants to waste their valuable academic career. That being the position and the petitioner having had the same opportunity of appearing in two examinations, of which he availed one and gave up the other, we find no reason to interfere and accordingly the writ petition fails.