SANJEEV CHHAJER Vs. JAI NARAYAN VYAS UNIVERSITY JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a student, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed that respondent-University be directed to give admission to the petitioner in LL.B. Part I course in the current session of 1999-2000. In short writ of mandamus is prayed for by the petitioner in this petition as he was denied admission in LL.B. Part I course by the respondent-University only on the ground that he had less than 50% marks when he originally applied for admission on 9-7-99.

(2.) The petitioner initially took admission in B.Com. Part I course in the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur in the year 1996 and completed his B.Com. Final examination in the year 1999. His examination was held on 31-5-99 and the result of the same was declared within less than one month i.e. 28-6-99. As per mark-sheet he secured 49.38% marks. Within the prescribed time i.e. less than 10 days he applied for re-evaluation of marks on 7-7-99. Last date for getting admission in LL.B. Part I course was 13-7-99 and, therefore, the petitioner applied for admission in LL.B. Part I course with the respondent-University on 9-7-99 along with the application made by him for re-evaluation of marks. Unfortunately the inordinate delay took place in re-evaluation of his marks and result of re-evaluation was declared on (sic) which was duly received by the petitioner on 18-10-99. However, by that time the admission was closed by respondent-University on 16-9-99 and the student who secured 49.7% marks, got the last admission. As per the re-evaluation result the petitioner secured 50.38% marks. Thus, one per cent marks was more. If there was a proper evaluation of marks in the beginning itself, then the petitioner would have secured 50.38% marks and thereby without any difficulty or hesitation he would have been entitled for the admission straightway in LL.B. Part I course, however, he was denied admission only because earlier his percentage of marks was 49.38%. The respondent-University has denied the admission to the petitioner only on the sole ground that it cannot give admission to the petitioner as the prescribed strength was already over and there was no more vacancy in LL.B. Part I course. This decision was taken by the respondent-University in the light of the resolution passed by the Bar Council of India.

(3.) Learned counsel Shri Lodha, appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that for no fault of petitioner he is made to suffer by the respondent-University by denying him admission in LL.B. Part I course. He submitted that the respondent-University cannot take up the stand that there was no more vacancy in the LL.B. Part I course and the admissions were closed on 16-9-99, therefore, the petitioner cannot be given admission.