MAHENDRA SINGH GEHLOT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice was issued to the non -petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 to show cause why this petition be not admitted. Mr. S.L Mardia, Additional Government Advocate appeared on behalf of non -petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and filed a written reply to the writ petition. The non -petitioner No 5 refused to accept the notice. Hence, the notice was deemed to have been served on him. No body appeared on behalf of non -petitioner No 5.

(2.) HEARD Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.L. Mardia, Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of non -petitioners Nos. 1 to 4.

(3.) IN the written -reply filed by Shri S.L. Mardia Additional Government Advocate on behalf of non petitioners Nos. 1 to 4, it was stated that 107 students only were admitted on the Three Years' Diploma Course in the morning August 14, 1973 on the basis of merits and the admissions were closed at 12 in the noon the very day. However, 13 other candidates presented themselves for admission in the afternoon of August 14, 1978 Their particulars were verified but they were not considered for admission without intimation to all the candidates who had obtained 193 or more than 193 marks in the Higher Secondary Examination and who had missed an opportunity for the admission in the morning of 14, 1978. It was further denied that 10 students including the petitioner were selected for admission on the basis of merits of August 14, 1978 and that the petitioner was present on August 14, 1973 during the the period between 8 am and 5 45 p m. As regards non -petitioner No. 5, it was alleged that he was not admitted but was permitted to attend the classes in pursuance of an order of the High Court till the disposal of his writ -petition. In short, the contention of the non -petitioners is that the regular classes have commenced from August 16, 1978 and no new admission is possible now and the petitioner was never selected for admission August 14, 1978.