SURESH SINGAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner after completing his B. Sc. Final Examination in the year 2000 applied for the BDS course for the year 2002-04. The petitioner continued to study in the respondent No. 2-college. The petitioner's original certificates were sent to the respondent-University for the purpose of enrollment, but same were returned to the petitioner with remark that since the petitioner does not have 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology subjects, therefore, he is not eligible for enrollment. In response to the above letter dated 24. 05. 2004 of the University, the respondent No. 2-college submitted point-wise reply and made it clear that petitioner passed B. Sc. with 56% marks in aggregate and he has passed in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and he has also passed his fist year science examination with the subjects of Chemistry, Botany, Zoology and English and thereby he became eligible for the admission of first year BDS course. The copy of the letter dated 18. 05. 2004 of the respondent-college is placed on record as Annex. 7. Despite getting justification from the respondent- college, nothing was communicated by the University to the respondent-college about enrollment of the petitioner by the University. The respondent-college about enrollment of the petitioner by the University. The respondent-college vide letter dated 14. 06. 2004 (Annex. 9) informed the petitioner that there are some objections by the University of Rajasthan in eligibility and enrollment in the case of the petitioner and the college has already submitted reasons justifying for the enrollment, but no reply has been received from the University. The copy of the letter dated 14. 06. 2004 is placed on record as Annex. 9. The petitioner apprehending that he may not be permitted to appear in the examination preferred this writ petition.

(3.) WHEN above was the statement of Registrar, Rajasthan University, this court observed that "todays' statement of the learned counsel for the respondent after taking instructions from the Registrar of the University clearly reveals that the University officials came to know that the petitioner was eligible candidate still they did not submit reply to the writ petition and it appears that by default they took a change of the dismissal of the writ petition despite the fact that they had already decided that the petitioner was eligible candidate. This court passed order on 29. 7. 2004 not to declare result of the petitioner. Though the petitioner was found eligible and he succeeded in the examination still the respondent University did not turn up before this Court for seeking modification of the order dated 29. 7. 2004 so as to declare the result of the petitioner and give him admission to the higher class. The order dated 29. 7. 2004, though obtained by the petitioner, does not mean that the respondents had no duty to bring to the notice of the Court the relevant facts which may entitle the petitioner to get the relief. This applies more when the respondent is an educational institution. The University cannot sit over the fate of any of the students. The default committed by the respondent cannot be appreciated by this Court. " On request the respondent- University was permitted to file the reply.