KAILASH RATHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Barmer dated December 1, 1987 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Munsif, Barmer dated November 23, 1987, dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner moved under Order 39 rule 1 and 2, C. P. C. The facts of the case giving rise to the revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Barmer with the allegation, in short, that the Principal, Government Teachers Training College, Barmer (non petitioner no. 2) invited applications for the training of teachers for the period 1987-89, he also submitted his application form, it was duly accepted, merit list was prepared and it was specified that the fee would be deposited and other formalities would be completed on August 31, 1987. THE candidates including the petitioner appeared before the Principal on August 31, 1989 for depositing the fee and completing other formalities. Three candidates whose names were in the merit list requested the Principal for cancellation of their selection and accordingly their selection was cancelled. For the three vacancies so created, the petitioner and two other candidates were given admission after 5. 00 P. M. the same day. THE petitioner duly deposited his fee and completed all other necessary formalities. He joined classes. He duly appeared in the first examination. On the opening of the school after the Dashera-Deepawali break on November 2, 1987, he found that his name was not shown in the attendance register and he learnt that his attendance was not marked on. the last date i. e. October 17, 1987. His father Dayaram is a teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School, Banner and the Deputy Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (non petitioner no. 4) is enemical towards him and criminal cases are pending between them. To wreck vengeance and to harass the petitioner and his father, he got his name deleted from the attendance register.

(3.) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner has attended the class and practicals throughout the two years and has completed the training. He has also appeared in the final examination. Admittedly, the result of candidates except the petitioner has been declared. It would be very harsh and inequitable if the petitioner's result is not declared. He has completed the training for two years and has appeared in the examination. It has been observed in Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur (supra) as follows :- "assuming that the appellant was admitted through-mistake, the appellant not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission of the appellant. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur V. Karnataka University, 1986 (Suppl) SCC 740) : (A. I. R. 1986 SC 1448 ). In that case, the appellants were admitted to certain private engineering colleges for the B. E. Degree Course, although they were not eligible for admission. In that case, this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the students whose admissions were subsequently cancelled and the order of cancellation was upheld by the High Court. At the same time, this Court took the view that the fault lay with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellant and that there was no reason why the appellant should suffer for the sins of the management of these engineering colleges. Accordingly, this Court allowed the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. The same principles which weighed with this Court in that case should also be applied in the instant case. The appellant was not at fault and we do not see why he should suffer for the mi-state committed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering".