SNIGDHA Vs. BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner now seeks a direction upon the respondents to publish the result for the second semester, Master in Urban Planning (MUP) Course and also to allow her to take registration for 3rd Semester MUP Course. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when her provisional admission to the 1st Semester of MUP Course was suddenly cancelled one day before the commencement of the 1st Semester examination, she was allowed to provisionally appear in the 1st semester examination of the said course, subject to the result of this writ application by order dated 5th November, 2012. Again, when the respondents were not admitting her in the second semester course, pursuant to the taking of the 1st semester examination, she approached this Court vide I.A. No. 3474/12 in the present writ application in which vide order dated 9th January, 2013, she was allowed to be admitted in the 2nd Semester course provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ application and also to avail the facility of the hostel on payment of usual charges. Subsequently, the petitioner was allowed to implead the AICTE as a party respondent in the instant writ application vide order dated 20th February, 2013, as according to her, the guidelines framed by the AICTE are determinative of the issues raised in the instant writ application where the respondent institute have arbitrarily raised the cut-off marks of 60% instead of 55% for admission of a candidate like the petitioner. It is submitted that when the 3rd semester course is about to commence from 3rd July, 2013, again the respondents are not allowing her to take registration in the said course to attend the classes.

(2.) Counsel for the respondent Institute however opposes the prayer for provisional admission to the 3rd semester course on the ground that the petitioner has been provisionally admitted initially in the MUP Course and she has not secured 60% qualifying marks of B. Arch. Course and therefore, her provisional admission was cancelled, which is the subject matter of the instant writ application. Therefore, the petitioner should not be allowed to take admission in the 3rd semester course, otherwise, she may claim equity on completion of the entire course. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that pending adjudication of the issue raised in the writ application, the petitioner has been allowed admission provisionally in the 1st and 2nd semester course, subject to the final outcome of the writ application. AICTE which appears to be a necessary party, has thereafter been impleaded and noticed, though it has not yet appeared. The issue raised herein therefore is still awaiting adjudication. In these circumstances, it would not be proper to refuse provisional admission to the 3rd semester course to the petitioner pending adjudication of the dispute raised in the writ application which can be decided after hearing the parties including the AICTE. In such circumstances, the petitioner is provisionally allowed to be admitted in the 3rd semester course subject to the final outcome of the writ application. During the 3rd semester course, the petitioner would also be allowed to avail the facility of the hostel on payment of usual charges, as by the last order dated 9th January, 2013 also, the similar condition has been imposed. However, the petitioner shall not claim equity in her favour on final adjudication of the writ application.