Rajbir Singh Dogra vs University of Jammu & Ors.

With the agreement of the learned counsel for the patties, this petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage.

The petitioner is trying to gat into the M.B.A. (Master of Business Administration) Course of the respondentUniversity through the medium of

Reserved category. But his entry is being blocked on the plea that he had not laid claim to the Reserved category in question in his application

Form and had not attached the requisite certificate alongwith and, as such, he was not entitled to be considered in the Reserved category, his

subsequent application in this regard, supported by the requisite certificate not withstanding. The matter raises an interesting and important point for

consideration and detarminationwhether the petitioner, not laying claim to Raserved category in the application Form, which was not accompanied

by the requisite certificate at the time of submission of the application Form was disentitled for receiving consideration in the Reserved category

inspite of his having subsequently appl.el and laying such claim, supported by the requisite certificate from the competent authority.

Before threadbare examination of the issue, a brief reference to the facts is required. Respondent University invited applications from eligible

candidates on prescribed Form for admission to thirty seats in M. B. A. Course for the Session 199091 through a notice published in the

newspapers. The last date for the receipt of applicationForms was fixed on February 26, 1990. In response, the petitioner also appears to have

applied seeking admission in the Course, but while filling up the prescribed Form, he did not lay claim to the Reserved category (Defence

Personnel and their children). But in the relevant clumn indicated, ""Not applicable"". The prescribed Form also required the candidates to attach a

certificate supporting their claim.

The process of selection comprised of a written test, an interview end a group discussion. The written test was conducted on March 25, 1930 and

is result was declared on May 4, 1990 wherein the petitioner at S. No 71.

Before the Interview, however, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondentUniversity through the Head of the Department concerned

stating that at the time 6f submission of the application Form, he could not get the request certificate of belonging to the Reserved category

(Defence Personnel and their Children) and as such, had applied for the 'General' Category. He requested that since he had obtained the requisite

certificate, as such, he be considered in the Reserved category. This application is undated, but appears to have been processed on May 18,

1990, when a report was put up to the concerned Head of the Department pointing out the relevant statute figuring on page 13 of the

respondentUniversity's Brochure, which contains information about the admission to Courses/Programme of Study (other than M. B. A. M. Phil

and Research Degree Programme) Upon this, the Admission Committee appears to have examined and considered the petitioner's application on

May 19, 1990 recording the following decision :

The above cases were discussed in the Meeting of the Admission Committee on May 19, 1990. It was decided that the Statutes governing

admission to various Courses of studies of the University, which are given at page 13 of the Brochure may be strictly followed and the above cases

may be considered as per the Statutes. The Reserved category certificates may not be considered and entertained at this stage"".

This decision is signed by six members of the Admission Committee and proceeds on total reliance being placed at the University Statutes figuring

at page 13 of the Brochure, which aspect will be dealt with later.

Thereafter, the first interview and group discussion were conducted on May 21, 1990 and on June 14, 1990, the respondentUniversity notified the

Selected List of 29 candidates for admission to the M B.A. Course reserving one seat for the Reserved category of Defence Personnel in view of

the orders passed by this Court in writ petition No. 348/90 on June 1, 1990

The petitioner appears to have made the first attempt of knocking at the doors of this court through the medium of writ petition No. 348/1990

praying interalia that the respondentUniversity be directed to treat him in the Reserved category (Children of Defence Personnel). This, writ petition

came to be disposed of vide order dated July 30, 1990 passed by brother (K. K. Gupta J.) directing as follows :

In order to sort out the dispute as to whether the petitioners are entitled to be considered in the above said reserved category because of their

failure for not applying earlier in that category and later on submitting those certificates, the proper authority seems to be the Vice Chancellor of the

University. The learned counsel for both sides have also agreed for it. As such, while disposing of the petitions, it is directed that the matter shall be

gone into by the Vice Chancellor Jammu University who shall dispose it of immediately as the classes are stated to be starting soon and till that is

done the seat meant for the abovesaid category in M B. A course shall not be filled"".

In compliance thereto, the Vice Chancellor of the respondentUniversity appears to have examined the matter recording the following decision :

That candidates who did not mention the desired reserved category at the time of submission of their application forms are not to be considered

for reserved category seats on the grounds:

That the department has never in the past considered those candidates for seats under reserved categories who did not mention consideration

under reserved category in their application at the time of their submission.

That already a physically handicapped candidate Shri Arvind Mattoo was not considered for the physically handicapped seat on the same

ground and the seat has been filled by the next eligible handicapped candidate.

3 That there is a special column existing in the application form, asking for information of consideration under reserved category was desired.

When not expressed, it is a fault of an applicant.

That any change from previous practice followed by the department will lead to serious Implications not only for the department but for all other

departments of the University.

Accordingly, the 'DeanAcademic Affairs is require to immediately communicate this decision to the Head of the deptt. of Management Studies

asking him to offer the seat to the next eligible candidate immediately.

Meanwhile, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying that he be declared selected for M. B. A. Course in the Reserved category (Children of

Defence Personnel) and be granted admission in the Course and that any decision to the contrary taken by the respondentUniversity including grant

of admission to respondent No. 10 be quashed. The petitioner's case as sat out in the writ petition is that he did not lay claim to the Reserved

category at the time of filling up of the prescribed Form as he was not in possession of the requisite certificate at the relevant time. After he had

submitted the relevant certificate along with an application requesting for consideration in the reserved category on May 18, 1990, wall before the

interview, ha was entitled to be considered in the relevant, category, as no rule, law or regulation made it obligatory upon him to do the needful at

the time of the submission of the application Form, The delay submission of the requisite certificate before the interview could in no way be a factor

in denying him a right of consideration in the reserved category, more so when his claim of belonging to the said category had not been refuted and

as he admittedly possessed a superior merit as against respondent No. 10 who had been granted admission in his place. As such, denial of

consideration to him on a very technical ground was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.

The respondentUniversity has filed objections against the writ petition, supported by an affidavit of the concerned Head of the Department,

interalia, stating that the writ petitioner had not deliberately laid claim to the Reserved category in question and the submission of the requisite

certificate by him at a stage when the selection process was on, did not entitle him to be considered in the relevant category. If the petitioner's

request were to be antertained, it would create serious difficulties in finalising the selection, process which was bound to further delay the start and

completion of the Session in question. It is further pointed out that once the petitioner had taken chance in the General category, he could not be

allowed to shift his ground by way of an 'after thought' and since the requirement incorporated in the prescribed application Form had been

uniformally followed there was no question or scope of reopening the issue. In the objections, it is admitted that the petitioner was not considered

for the reserved category, but it is pleaded that the earlier order (of brother K. K Gupta J) would operate as resjudicata entailing dismissal of the

present writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the record submitted before the court by learned counsel for the

respondent University.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no rule or law or regulation or statute which required that a candidate must lay claim

to the reserved category in the application Form or that any such claim laid by a candidate subsequent to the submission of application Form,

supported by a requisite certificate would disentitle him from being considered in the relevant category. He pointed out that the relevant regulations

pertaining to the MBA Course did not prescribe any such requirement, though regulations relating to other courses did so. Since the relevant

requirement for MBA Course were either silent or did not expressly provide for any such requirement, the regulations covering other courses

prescribing requirement in controversy could not be read and imported for grant of admission in M.B A. Course.

The learned counsel also contended that the petitioner had laid claim of belonging to the Reserved Category well before the interview and the

completion of the selection process and, as such, according consideration to him in the reserved category would not have regulated in any difficulty

or inconvenience to the respondentUniversity in finalising the selection process. Hs also pointed out that the respondentUniversity had admitted in

the objections (para No 8) that the petitioner was never considered under the reserved category for the Defence Personnel. He submitted that the

petitioner's carrier cannot be jeoperdised for a mistake and moreso in view of the fact that the petitioner possessed better merit as against

respondent No. 10 and that there is no dispute to the petitioner belonging to the Reserved Category (Children of Defence Personnel). In support

of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on AIR 1980 Suprema Court : 1230 at page 1237, wherein it has bean held :

To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably

shown that the qualification has been acquired before the televant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though

indubitably was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board is to make

procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservant to substance but as superior to the essence.

The learned counsel for the respondentUniversity has laid great emphasis on the point that the petitioner had consciously decided not to claim

benefit of the reserved category by not laying claim in the prescribed Form and by not attaching the requisite certificate alongwith. He submitted

that the subsequent action of the petitioner was only an after thought, which, if entertained would result in practical difficulties for the

respondentUniversity and set up precedents complicating the finalisation of the selection process in various courses persued by the University. In

this connection, he pointed out that the selection for the M. B. A. Course was being made by resort to an AM India Competition and there could

be many instances where cases of candidates falling in the category of the petitioner had been uniformally rejected. Any intervention by the court or

acceptance of the petitioner's plea could upon flood gates rendering it unmanageable for the respondentUniversity to run the course in question.

The learned counsel further contended that reservation was a mere concession and no right and assuming it to be a right, the petitioner's action in

deliberately not laying a claim to the Reserved category amounted to waiver disentitling the petitioner from consideration. The petition was barred

by the principles of resjudicata as the earlier writ petition (W. P. No. 348/1990) was a carbon copy of the present rwit petition and order dated

July 30, 1590 passed in the earlier writ petition, against which no appeal had bean filed, was conclusive on the subject.

It is in this backdrop that rival contensions need to be examined and appreciated to determine the petitioner's entitlement or otherwise for

consideration to reserved category. If it could be held that laying of claim to the reserved category in the prescribed application Form (for M B. A.

Course) was a mandatory requirement emanating from and backed up by some law, Rules and Regulations, then its nonobservance would

naturally see the fate of the petitioner But when the requirement was found to be devoid of any legal sanction, ha would not only be entitled to

consideration in the reserved category but also to grant of admission in the course, subject, however, to his proof of belonging to such reserved

category, being the order.

Viewed in totality, the matter raises many questions which seek answer. Where does this requirement (laying claim in the relevant column of

application Form for M.B.A. Course) emanate from Does it spring from any law, Rule or Regulation and is it so baked, as the rest in the other

courses run by the University. In other words, dose it have any legal sanction behind it? If it source is a mere practice, as projected by the Vice

Chancellor vide his order dated January 26, 1990, does it take away a candidate's precious right of consideration ? Did the petitioner possess

sufficient or full knowledge of the consequences, its nonobservance would entail ? What barred him from putting up a claim subsequent to the

submission of the application Form, but well before the finalisation of the selection process ? Dees ha deserve to be thrown away merely beeuse he

had not specified the reserved category in the relevant column of the application Form, moreso, when there is no dispute regarding his superior

merit in the reserved category and his belonging to it ? What prejudice would be caused to the respondentUniversity if his right of consideration

was accepted and given due regard ? Last of all, should the petitioner in this era of substantial justice be out rightly rejected on the very threshhold

and that too on the weak pleas of rejudicata and waiver ?

Dealing with the nature of the requirement would naturally lead to a brief survey of the University's statutes and Regulations in reference to the M

B. A Course, it is the admitted position that the procedure regulating admission to the course in question does not lay down any such requirement,

nor do the University statutes or Regulations pertaining to the course in question do so. It is also not in dispute that the advertisement Notice

inviting applications from eligible candidates for the course in question does not contain the requirement.

The requirement, therefore, for the first time surfaces and confronts the candidate at the time when he fills up the prescribed application Form. In

column No. 9 of the application Form it is provided as under :

If you belong to any of the reserved categories mentioned in information Bulletin, please specify category :

Please attach a certificate regarding :

(a) Permanent resident of J&K State :

(b) Reserved categories issued by competent authority bearing the official seal"".

Even in the prescribed application Form, there is no warning or caution that if a candidate does not attach the requisite certificate, he shall be

disentitled from consideration even if he subsequently lays claim to such reserved category. Therefore in the given situation, how does a candidate

who is not in possession of the requisite certificate react. Conceivably, there are two options available to him. Ha may either specify the category

and request for the submission of the requisite certificate later on or he may not specify the category' and Say a subsequent claim after being

equipped by requisite certificate. If the candidate exercises the latter option well before the finalisation of the selection process, he cannot be

barred from consideration in the relevant reserved category, unless any Law, Rule or Regulation provides to the contrary.

As already pointed out, there is no Rule or Regulation regulating the admission to the M. B. A. Course which mandate that a candidate must lay

claim to the reserved category in the prescribed application Form and must append a certificate in support there of alongwith, nor is their, any

University statutes or Regulations referable to the course in question, which impose a bar on the candidate to ley claim to the reserved category

after the submission of the application Form and disentitle him from consideration in the relevant reserved category. There Is also no' Rule or

Regulation which postulates rejection of a candidate's request for admission in She event he fails to lay claim to the reserved category in trig

application Form and does not attach the requisite certificate alongwith at the time of the submission of the application Form.

That being the position, it is not understandable as to on what ground or basis could the petitioner be barred from consideration in the reserved

category, moreso, in a situation when there is no challenge to the petitioner belonging to the reserved category and no denial to his superior merit

as against respondent No. 10, who has been granted admission in his place.

From the perusal of the record it transpires that the petitioner has been denied consideration on the basis of misplaced reliance on the University's

Statutes, contained in the Brochure at page 13 This is evident from the decision of the Admission Committee recorded on May 19th, 1990 which

stands extracted herein above. In the contents of the decision, the word 'other"" appears to have been inserted later and this insertion, which is not

liable to be taken into consideration, appears in different hand writing and ink even to the naked eye. This seems to have been done perhaps to

show that the decision proceeded on the analogy of the requirement provided for other courses. Even this is of no avail to the respondentUniversity

when the decision of the Admission Committee is read in the context of the note put up by the concerned Head of the Department which places

total reliance on the UniversityStatutes contained in page No. 13 of the Brochure.

From all this it is manifast that the petitioner's candidature has been rejected by placing wrong reliance on the Universitystatutes contained in page

13 of the Brochure It appears that the AdmissionCommittee presumed to comprise of eminent academician failed to realise that the provisions

contained in the Brochure regulated the admission to all courses run by the University other than M. B. A.M. Phil and Research Degree

Programme. It did not need any rasearch to be conducted as the academissions are used to, to find out that in the very title the Brochure indicated

that it contained information about the admission to courses other than M. B. A. Course etc. If that were so, which in fact it is, there was no

occasion for the members of the Admission Committee to place reliance on the statutes contained in page 13 of the Brochure, while denying

consideration to the petitioner in the reserved category. They could not have done so even by way of analogy for the reason that requirement has

to be provided in Regulations pertaining to the course in question. In other words, Regulation/Statutes governing the admission to other courses

cannot be imported or relied upon for grant or denial of admission to the M B. A. Course.

In view of this, I feel no hesitation in holding that the requirement in question, which is projected to be mandatory by the respondentUniversity, has

no legal sanction behind it and as such, cannot be enforced to take away the petitioner's valuable right of consideration. In the absence of any such

legal sanction behind it, the requirement can by no logic or reasoning be treated as mandatory and cannot have the consequence of disentitllng the

petitioner from consideration in the reserved category.

Another interesting, yet intriguing aspect of the matter, is that the Vice Chancellor of the University has taken a stand in the matter which is in direct

conflict with the stand taken by the Admission Committee. In his decision dated August 24, 1990, the Vice Chancellor appears to have realised

the futality of the earlier stand taken by the Admission Committee by placing wholehog reliance on some practice being followed by the University.

The decision of the Vice Chancellor extracted hereinabove makes an Interesting for end curious reading. Finding fault with the petitioner and not

indicating his choice in the special column of the application Form (Column No: 9) he invokes some past practice to deny consideration to the

petitioner to accommodate respondent No. 1O in his place. While doing so, he seems to have over looked the contents of communication dated

May 28, 1990 addressed by the Dean of Faculty to the Head of the Department of the Management. He also appears to have taken no notice of

the walkout of the Dean of Faculty during the emergency meeting of the Admission Committee hold on May 19, 1990 Needless to emphasise that

even in the second emergent meeting of the Admission Committee, which appears to have formed the basis for the Vice Chancellor's decision,

misconceived reliance of some Universitystatutes is implied.

If the ViceChancellor had taken pains to look into the University record, he would have safely discovared that the practice claimed to be

uniformally follow d was not in tact so followed. This is evident not only from the communication of the Dean of Faculty, referred to herein above

but also from AnnexureP7 appended to the writ petition, which contains them minutes of the meeting of Interpertation Committee dated 24Sh Oct.

'983, signed by the Asstt. Registrar Admissions and at S. No 11, it is recorded as under:

The committee, therefore, recommend that in view of the special circumstances Mr. Qureshi may be allowed to submit the revised category

certificate under SRO314 at this stage.

All this goes to show that the practice projected and relied upon by the Vice Chancellor for denying consideration to the petitioner was not being

uniformally followed. In some cases, the discretion was exercised in favour of the candidate and in others against the candidates and on the basis of

no criteria or guideline. Even otherwise it is difficult to fathom that a candidate's right can be taken away on the basis of some practice, the origin of

which is not known and the pattern of which is not uniform. Viewed thus, the order of the Vice Chancellor dated August 24,1990 denying the

consideration to the petitioner is not liable to be sustained in law.

Coming to the plea of resjudicata, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would have deserved outright rejection for the reason that no

foundation has been laid in the objections filed on behalf of the respondentUniversity in support of the plea, nor have the relevant pleadings been

attached along with the objections to show that the matter agitated in the present writ petition was directly and substantially in issue in writ petition

No. 348/1290 which stands disposed of in terms of order dated July 30, 1990. All the same, the learned counsel for the respondent. University

urged that the points raised in the earlier petition (Writ petition No. 348 of 1990) were identical to the points raised in the present writ petition and

since the court had not granted any relief to the petitioner in the earlier petition and since he had not preferred any appeal against the order dated

July 30, 1990, therefore, She aforesaid order had become final and operate as resjudicata, entailing the dismissal of the present writ petition.

Even as the learned counsel had raised the plea of resjudicata in general terms, this court deamed it fit to send for the record of the writ petition

No. 348 of 1990 only to find out if the plea was possessed of some substance. Having examined the pleadings and the order passed in the earlier

writ petition. 1 find the subject matter in the present writ petition is different from that of the earlier writ petition and so is the cause of action. I also

see that there is no formal adjudication on the issues raised in the earlier writ petition culminating in the direction having been passed with the

agreement of the parties that the matter require to be looked into by the Vice Chancellor of the respondentUniversity in other words, it cannot be

said that the earlier writ petition (No348 of 1990) has been decided on merits. In any case, in the present writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved

of the action of the Vice Chancellor and grant of admission to respondent rto10 which actions ware not in question in the earlier writ petition,

therefore, the plea of resjudicata raised by the learned counsel for the respondent University has no force and deserves to be rejected.

The plea of waiver also deserves the same fate. It is elementary that there can be no waiver unless the person against whom it is claimed had full

knowledge of his right end the consequences of the abandonment of such right. The conduct of person must be such from which it can be easily

implied that he has voluntarily relinquished and abondoned his light. Waiver of a right cannot be lightly inferred aid in any casa it requires something

more than an inaction.

In support of this plea, the learned counsel for the respondentUniversity, forceful argued that by not specifying the category in the prescribed

application Form, the petitioner had taken a conscious decision of not laying his claim to the reserved category. Having done so, he could not be

allowed to shift his ground which would result in considerable difficulties and inconvenience for ins University rendering it unmanageable for the

University to run the course in question.

As pointed out elsewhere in this judgment, the petitioner could not be attributed with any knowledge of the requirement in specify the relevant

reserved category in the application Form and the consequences that would flow, if it was not so done. It is not necessary to go over all those

circumstances again. Suffice it to say that no Rule or Regulation relating to M. B. A. Course made it obligatory upon he petitioner to specify the

relevant reserved category in the prescribed application Form Nor was it provided that any such noncompliance would entail the rejection of his

candidature. That being the position, it can be no reasoning be said that the petitioner had full knowledge of the requirement and the consequences

the would ensue in the event of the noncompliance of such requirement, Viewed thus, the claim of waiver against the petitioner is lacking in

requisite basis and foundation.

I am also not impressed by the difficulties projected by the respondentUniversity in case the petitioner's request for consideration in the reserved

catagory would be entertained. Much emphasis has been laid on the contention that if such like requests were to be entertained after the

submission of application form, it would result in delaying the finalisation of selection process and would set up bad precedent for future. It was

also stressed that since selection to the M. B. A. course was made through an All India Competition, there could be instances where candidates

situated like that of petitioner would come up with their grievances loading to the opening of flood gates.

In the present case, I don't see any chance, even remote, of the finalisation of the selection process having been delayed if the petitioner's request

for his consideration in the reserved category had been entertained. It is the admitted position that the petitioner laid claim to the reserved category

in his application dated May 18, |1990. supported by the requisite certificate. At this point of time, even the interviews had not been conducted. It

could be only after the completion of the conduct of interview and group discussion that the aggregate merit of the candidates could have been

scrutinised. And only after that could the stage arise when candidates belonging to the reserved category would be set apart en the basis of their

interse merit. In this scenario, it is futile to urge that according consideration to the petitioner in the reserved category would have in any way

delayed the finalisation of the selection process or the commencement of the course The other objection raised appears to be as frivolous as the

first one The respondent University has not come forward to show as to how many candidates were equally circumstanced with that of the

petitioner and if the petitioner's request were to be entertained, how and how many candidates situated alike would come up with their grievance

pleading to en endless process of grant of admission in the reserved category for the course in question.

In any case, the petitioner alone has approached this court for redressal of his grievance. There is nothing before this court to presume that many

more candidates similarly situated would also approach the court or the respondent University, if the petitioner's case was allowed. It is for this

court to protect the rights of the petitioner and not to deny the same on a hypothesis.

The last dimension of this casa relates to the grant of admission to respondent No: 10. The petitioner seeks the quashing of his admission on the

ground that he had been interviewed by the ""Interview Committee"" of which his aunt (respondent No: 6) happened to be the member. Therefore,

on the basis of the doctrine against bias as laid down in Kripak's and aubsequently followed in Ashok Yadhav's case, the grant of admission of

respondent No: 10 stood vitiated There is no denial to the fact that respondent No: 6 is closely related to respondent No: 10, nor is it refuted that

respondant No: 6 was the member of the 'Interview Committee' which committee had also interviewed respondent No: 10 The allegation made in

this regard in para No: 15 of the writ petition is replied to in the objections filed on behalf respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 9 as under:

Para 15 of the petition relates to the relationship between respondents No. 6 and 10. The said relationship, it is submitted is wholly irrelevant to

the point in controversy in the present writ petion...

As would be evident from the contents of the objections extracted herein above, there is no denial either to the degree of relationship between

respondent No. and respondent No. 10, nor to the fact that No. 6 was the member of the Interview Committee before which respondent No. 10

appeared.

In this view of the matter, there should have been no reluctance in quashing the admission granted to respondent No. 10, But on equity I

do not propose to do so. Respondent No. 10 must have undergone the course for some time now and he must have found the foothold and

carved out his plans for snapping his future in Business Management. Therefore, it would not be just to cut short his carreer at this stage, for a

wrong done by the respondentUniversity. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner has been gracious in not pressing the relief, prayed for, against

respondent No. 10.

By way of catching at the last straw, the learned counsel for the RespondentUniversity, pointed out that the total in took capacity for the current M.

B. A. Course was thirty. Since all thirty seats stood filled up, it would not be possible for the RespondentUniversity to add one more seat to

accommodate the petitioner. It need hardly be impressed upon that the orders and directions passed by this court and the commands issued are

meant to be respected and implemented. Adding a seat here and there and that too in M. B. A. Course should not create any difficulty for the

RespondentUniversity. There Is no dearth of instances when Professional Colleges have added seats over and above their intake capacity in

compliance in the orders of this court, this is so even in post Graduate Medical Courses where a seat cannot be added as it requires creating of a

new infrastructure like provision of a guide and so on As such, no inconvenience would be caused by adding a seat in the M. 8. A. course of the

Jammu University which only would mean adding a chair in the class room.

Given regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the petitioner is entitle to consideration In Reserved category (Defence

Personnel and their children) for admission to M. B. A. course for the session 199091 and that he has been denied such consideration most

arbitrarily and without any valid reason.

For the reasons given, I, therefore, quash the decisions of the Admission Committee dated May 19, 1990 and May 29, 1990 and the decision of

the Vice Chancellor dated August 24, 1990 in so far as these decisions disentitle the petitioner from consideration in the reserved category of

'Defance Personnal and their Children' for admission to the M. B. A Course. I also cammand the respondents 1 to 9 to accord consideration to

the petitioner in the relevant reserved category and to grant him admission in the M. B. A. Course for the session 199091 after his certificate of

belonging to the reserved category had been found conforming to the requirement, if any. The whole process of consideration shall be completed

by RespondentUniversity within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement and a compliance report in this regard shall be

submitted within two weeks to this court.

With this, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs The record submitted by the

learned counsel for respondents be returned to him.