SAIFULLAH KHALID Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed to direct the respondent L.N.M. University to admit the petitioner in Ph.D. course.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that for the purposes of being admitted in the Ph.D. course, the petitioner got registered with the respondent University vide registration No. 30121/1985 and was also allotted Roll No. 1224180 for pre- Ph.D. Test in Education and was issued an Admit card, whereafter the petitioner had appeared in the written test and obtained 110 marks. The petitioner had then kept making enquiry from the office of the respondent University regarding interview/ counselling to be held, however, the petitioner was not given any information, but subsequently, he came to know that the interview has already been held in between the period 6th September, 2016 to 9th September, 2016 and 34 students have qualified. The petitioner is stated to have then filed CWJC No. 13295 of 2017 wherein he had challenged the result declared by the Education Department of the respondent University for Admission to the Ph.D. course as also for issuing a direction upon the respondents to provide admission in the Ph.D. course. The writ petition of the petitioner herein was heard along with CWJC No.5476 of 2017 and other analogous cases and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 26.10.2018 disposed of the said writ petitions in view of the fact that the Examination Department of the respondent University, in its meeting held on 03.07.2018, had decided to cancel the final result of PRT-2012-13 for admission to Ph.D. course in the faculty of Education.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondent University had conducted fresh interview wherein the petitioner had appeared for interview on 10.01.2019 and then a final selection list was published on 29.01.2019 wherein the name of the petitioner was also present and he had been declared to have been selected. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner was not informed about the date fixed for taking admission, he could not take admission, hence on account of the fault of the University, the petitioner has been deprived from taking admission in Ph. D. Course, thus this Court should direct the respondent University to admit the petitioner to the Ph. D. course.