Aman Midha and others vs Guru Jambheshwar University

N.K. Sodhi, J.—Gum Jambheshwar University, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the University) advertised 30 seats for admission to the Master of Information Technology course (for short the course) for the academic session 2000-2001. Out of these seats 20 were open merit seats meant for general candidates whereas the remaining 10 were reserved for Non Resident Indians (NRI)/NRI Sponsored/Industry Sponsored/Foreign candidates. Selection of these candidates was to be made strictly on the basis of merit in the entrance test and the candidates at the time of the filling up their application forms had to indicate their options against the proper column provided for NRI/In-duslry Sponsored/Foreign candidates. The last date for the receipt of application forms was 21.6.2000. Admissions to the course were to be made through an entrance test which was conducted by the University on 25.6.2000 at Hisar. Petitioners filed their applications within time and opted for admission against the open merit seats. They appeared in the entrance test on 25.6.2000 and the result of the test was declared on 5.7.2000. First counselling for the open merit seats was held on 10.7.2000 and the counselling for NRI/ln-dustry Sponsored seats was held on 13.7.2000. Final counselling if seats were vacant was to be held on 20.7.2000. Petitioners on the basis of their merit obtained in the entrance test could not be admitted in any of the open seats. At the time of counselling on 10.7.2000 the petitioners claim that they were informed that 10 more seats for NRI/lnclusiry Sponsored candidates were being increased after obtaining permission from the Vice-Chancellor and they could apply for the NR1 seats which they immediately did on the same day and their applications were accepted. They deposited the requisite fee. The petitioners started attending the classes when suddenly they received a notice dated 1.8.2000 calling upon them to show cause why the admission granted to them be not cancelled as there had been serious irregularities/illegalities committed by the office. Petitioners submitted their reply to the said notice and before their admissions could be cancelled they filed the present writ petition which came up for hearing on 8.8.2000 when notice of motion was issued. They were allowed to continue to attend their classes meanwhile.

In response to the notice issued by this Court, the University has filed its reply. It is stated that originally there were 10 seats earmarked for NRI/Industry Sponsored students and on 13.7.2000 counselling was conducted for this class of students and 10 of them were admitted. It is further stated that 6 out of the admitted students were such who had originally opted for NR!/lndustry Sponsored seats whereas the remaining 4 who are amongst the petitioners were given admissions even though they had not opted for those seats. In view of the demand from various students, the Admission Committee of the University created 10 additional seats in its meeting held on 18.7.2000. Since the additional seats had been created after the last date for receipt of applications was over, the University sent intimations to 206 candidates who had qualified in the entrance test but had not by then been admitted under any category so that they could also opt for NRI/Indus-try Sponsored seats. All these candidates were called for counselling on 10.8.2000 and it was decided to grant admission to 10 candidates on the basis of their merit in the entrance test which included petitioners No. 2 to 8 and 10. Petitioners No. I and 9 were not given admission on account of their low merit as their marks in the entrance test are lower than the last admitted candidate in this category. Consequently, the notices issued to petitioners No. 2 to 8 8 and 10 have been withdrawn by the University.

It is, thus, clear from the reply filed by the University that 8 out of the 10 petitioners have been granted admission after the seats for NRI/lndustry Sponsored candidates had been increased on 18.7.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the claim on behalf of petitioners No. 1 and9who have been denied admission on account of their low merit. In this view of the matter, the writ petition has become infructuous.

Before concluding, we may mention that during the pendency of the writ petition one Nishant Mathur filed an application under Order i Rule I Oof the CPC seeking permission of this Court to be impleared as a respondent in the writ petition. It is staled that the applicant was a candidate for admission to the course against one of the seats meant for NRI/lndustry Sponsored candidates and that he had opted for this seat in the application form which he had submitted before 21.6.2000 which was the last date for receipt of applications. This applicant wants to get himself im-pleaded as he wanted to challenge the admission granted by the University to petitioners No. 2 to 8 and 10 on the ground that they had not opted for an NRI/lndustry Sponsored seat in their application forms and, therefore, they could not be granted admission against those seats. Notice of this application was given to the parties and the petitioners opposed the applicant being impleaded as a respondent.

Alter hearing counsel for the parties and with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we allow this application and direct that the applicant be impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. Office will make necessary correction in the array of parties.

Now coming to the grievance made by the newly added respondent. His plea in that the petitioners could not be granted admission as they had not originally opted for the NRl/Industry Sponsored seats and, therefore, they could not be allowed to change their options after the last date of receipt of applications. This, according to him, is contrary to the terms of the Brochure issued by the University. There is no merit in this plea of respondent No. 4. It is common case of the parties that NR1 seats were increased from 10 to 20 on 18.7.2000 i.e. after the last date for the receipt of applications was over. This being so, the University in all fairness sent intimation to all the candidates who had qualified in the entrance test and who by then had not been admitted to the course under any category to opt for the NRI/lndustry Sponsored seats if they were interested for being admitted against those seats. The petitioners opted for those seats and were given admission in preference to respondent No. 4 because they had higher merit in the entrance test. The fact that respondent No. 4 had originally opted for an NRI seat in his application form would not give him any preference over me petitioners because of the change of circumstances on 18.7.2000. Since the University had afforded an opportunity to every candidate to opt for the additional seats which were created on 18.7.2000, its action is fair and just and then the admissions against those seats have been made strictly on the basis of the merit obtained by the candidates in the entrance test. Admittedly, petitioners No. 2 to 8 and 10 who have been given admissions have a higher merit than respondent No. 4. There is, thus, no ground for this respondent to challenge the admission of the petition- ers.

In the result, the petitioners who already stand admit-ted to the course require no further relief and their petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous,

Petition dismissed