E. Murali Mohan vs Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad and others

Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the first respondent in giving a direction to the third respondent to admit the petitioner to I year Bachelor of Veterinary Science Course for the academic year 1998-99, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard both the Counsel.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein appeared for the EAMCET examination held in May, 1998 and secured rank - 2095. Thereafter, the first respondent called the petitioner for interview and in the interview held on 31-12-1998 he was offered a seat in B.Sc., (Agri.) and he was informed by the Convenor that if any vacancy arises in B.V.Sc., course he will be accommodated as per his rank. On that understanding the petitioner seemed to have paid the tuition fee. But he was not attending the college as he was not interested in prosecuting B.Sc. (Agri) course. Subsequently, in the sliding that has taken place, the petitioner secured a seat in B.V.Sc., course and the Convenor informed the second respondent - Principal, Agricultural College, Bapatla about the allotment of seat to the petitioner in B.V.Sc., course and requested him to intimate the same to the petitioner. According to the Counsel for the respondents, the Principal seemed to have announced this fact through mike and also affixed a communication on the notice board. But, as the petitioner was not attending the college he was not aware of allotment of a seat in B.V.Sc., course and, therefore, he could not join the course immediately. Subsequently, having come to know of the allotment of a seat in B.V.Sc., course, he seemed to have approached the third respondent and requested him to admit him in I year B.V.Sc., course. The third respondent informed the petitioner that he cannot be admitted to B.V.Sc., course without instructions from 1st Respondent as already the first semester was over, though the seat is left unfilled. In those circumstances, the petitioner seemed to have filed a representation before the first respondent on 21-6-1999 to give a direction to the third respondent to admit him in I year B.V.Sc., course. As the first respondent did not move the matter, the present writ petition has been filed on 2-7-1999. On 5-7-1999, I have directed the standing Counsel for Agricultural University to produce the concerned file before the Court.

Mr. Siva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the second respondent was directed to inform the petitioner about the allotment of a seat in B.V.Sc., course, who seemed to have not informed the petitioner in the manner known to law except announcing through mike and affixing a communication on the notice board. As the petitioner was not attending the college, the question of knowing about his admission to B.V.Sc., course does not arise. Hence, the action of the second respondent in not communicating the petitioner about the allotment of a seat in B.V.Sc., course resulted in this litigation. It is well settled that any communication addressed to an individual has to be served either in person or through a registered letter under acknowledgment. Both the courses were not followed in this case. As such, I am inclined to allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to admit the petitioner to I year B.V.Sc., course forthwith without further loss of time.

With regard to putting up minimum attendance as required under the regulations of the University, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harsha Pratap Sisodia v. Union of India and others, 1 (1999) SLT 573, I direct the respondents to count the attendance from the date of admission of the petitioner into B.V.Sc., course as for no fault of him he lost one semester and the mistake completely lies with the authorities concerned.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.