DEEPAK KAUSHAL Vs. MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY UDAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner was a candidate for admission to One of the Engineering Colleges in Rajasthan THE non-petitioner University held a test called Pre Engineering Test (PET) for admission of candidates from Rajasthan (at Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Bhilwara and Udaipur ) against seats allotted to the State of Rajasthan in 15 Regional Engineering Colleger in India for the year 1994. THE rules of admission were published by the University and made available to that candidates in the form of a booklet entitled " INFORMATION BOOKLET FOR PRE-ENGINEERING TEST (PET ) 1994". THE rules provided for reservations of certain number of seats for different categories of candidates. One of the reserved categories was that of children of Ex-Servicemen and the revision petitioner applied to be considered in that category. THE non - petitioners held him in-eligible for being considered in that category on the ground that his father was not of Rajasthan origin in the Army which according to the non-petitioners, was a condition of eligibility for the category of children of Ex-Servicemen. THE non-petitioners refused admission to the petitioner as he did not qualify for admission in General category and was not eligible for being considered in 'children of Ex-Servicemen' category.

(2.) THE revision petitioner filed a suit challenging the non- petitioners' refusal to grant him admission and moved an application for grant of temporary injunction directing grant of provisional admission to him. THE trial court granted the temporary injunction but the appellate Court reversed the order and rejected the application for temporary injunction. This Order of the appellate Court is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) AS the only point in controversy between the parties is as to the interpretation of the rules of admission and as the essential facts are not in dispute the suit itself could have been disposed off finally. In the matters like this where delay in decision of the suit may be fatal to the interest of the parties and when the case involves discussion on the merits of case also, it is in the interest of both the parties and of justice to dispose off the suit after hearing arguments finally rather than hearing arguments on the interim applications and deciding the same. However, since in this case an interim application was decided by the trial court and the appellate Court but the appellate Court pronounced finally on merits of the case, I have no option but to deal with the merits of the case. Not doing so would be furthering the agony of the parties and throwing them to another round of avoidable litigation.