Neetu vs State of Haryana and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner allegedly applied for admission in the D.Ed. course on 11.07.2013 specifically mentioning that she

had passed her 10+2 examination with Arts stream obtaining 85.60% marks and belongs to General category. The online application form No.

100006702 bears photograph and signatures of the petitioner. It is further alleged that she deposited the fee in the State Bank of India. She was

called for interview/counselling but admission was not given to her in the first counselling though she was having 85.60% marks, whereas another

candidate Manju Rani, who had secured 85.20% marks in her 10+2 examination, was given admission. She met respondent No. 2 and later on,

the petitioner came to know that her credentials are wrongly mentioned in the online form as instead of Arts stream, she is referred to as a student

from Science stream and obtained 64.60% marks instead of 85.60% marks in 10+2 examination. Since her request for correction of her

credentials in the online form was not accepted by respondent No. 2, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. After notice, reply has

been filed in which it is alleged that the petitioner herself filled up her educational qualification in her online application form No. 100006702 that

she belongs to Science stream and had secured 64.60% marks. The petitioner has been allowed admission in D.Ed. (Hindi) course against 30%

quota of Science stream during 4th round of online counselling held on 07.09.2013 to 11.09.2013 but she could not prove that she had passed

10+2 examination in Science stream with 64.60% marks and her candidature was rightly rejected by the Principal, DIET, Matter Shayam (Hisar).

It is alleged that she cannot compare herself with Manju Rani who has passed 10+2 examination with 85.20% marks in the Arts stream because

the relative merit of the Science and Arts stream are altogether different.

The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had sent the correct online application form in which she had filled up Arts as her

stream but the respondents have arbitrarily considered the petitioner in the Science stream and issued allotment letter in the 4th round of counselling

for the purpose of admission at DIET, Mattar Shayam (Hisar). Since the petitioner has not passed 10+2 examination from Science stream,

therefore, she could not have produced evidence with regard to her percentage mentioned in the application form and her candidature was

rejected. It is submitted that in any case, it could be an inadvertent error which can be corrected and the petitioner may be granted admission.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that they have acted upon the form submitted by the petitioner herself in which she

has filled up Science as her stream in which she claimed to have obtained 64.60% marks. The respondents are not to be blamed in this regard as

the fault is on the part of the petitioner herself and there is no provision for correction of credentials in the online form as by considering the

petitioner in the Arts stream, the entire merit has to be changed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The online application form, attached with the reply as Annexure R-1, and the allotment letter issued to the petitioner for admission at DIET,

Mattar Shayam (Hisar) shows that the petitioner herself had filled in the Science stream. If there is any mistake in the online form, it is to be

attributed to the petitioner who had also made a declaration in the online application form itself, which reads as under:--

I hereby declare that I have provided correct information in this application. I understand and agree that any misrepresentation or omission of facts

in my application will justify the denial of admission, the cancellation of admission, or expulsion from the program at any stage.

This declaration, being part of the online application form, is also signed by the petitioner herself who could not take the plea that it is due to

inadvertence that she has filled up Science stream and also the marks which does not belong to her. Thus, what is required on the part of the

candidates applying for admission specially in the case of online application form is that they should be more vigilant and practice before filling up

the application form before it is actually sent online. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is

hereby dismissed.