Sandeep Dhawan vs Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner was a candidate for admission to the; M. B. A. Course at Kurukshetra University. He having failed to get admission, has approached this court through the present writ petition with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the University to admit him to the course against the seats reserved for the Non-Resident Indians/ Industry Sponsored candidates by giving him the benefit of weightage of 10 marks as stipulated under cl. V of the prospectus.

The respondents contest the petitioner''s claim and point out that the weightage of 10 marks has not been given to any student who has been admitted to the M. B. A. course against the NRI/MRI sponsored/Industry sponsored candidates. They also point out that the petitioner had secured a total of 33.58% marks. As against this, the last candidate who has been admitted has secured 35.17% marks. Not only that. Eight candidates who have a higher score than the petitioner have not been admitted. A copy of the prospectus has also been produced along with the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

We have heard counsel for the parties.

Mr. Patwalia, counsel for the petitioner contends that the procedure for selection has been prescribed in the University Prospectus According to that procedure, the merit list of the candidates had to be prepared by giving weightage of 10 marks. The criterion for grant of weightage was also prescribed in cl. V. The candidates who had passed the qualifying examination from the Kurushetra University were entitled to the award of five marks. Those candidates who had a. consistently good academic record i.e. had secured Ist class in the first attempt from the First Public Examination to the qualifying examination were entitled to the award of another five marks. On this basis, the petitioner claims that he should have been given a credit of 10 marks and then-considered for admission to the course. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents.

A perusal of the Prospectus shows that there were a total of 40 seals for the M. B. A. course. Out of these, admission to 30 seats was subject to reservation rules of the University. The remaining 10 seats were earmarked for the Non-Resident Indians or the other sponsored candidates. The number of these seals was subsequently revised. However, the criterion for admission was not changed. According to the selection procedure, the eligible candidates had to appear in the written test, the group discussion and the interview. A provision for the grant of weightage to the extent of 10 marks has been made. So far as the sponsored candidates are concerned, it was specifically provided that the "selection of these candidates will be strictly on the basis of inter se merit in the written test, group discussion and interview." On examination of the provisions in the prospectus, it appears to us that the University had to make two separate merit lists. For preparation of merit list relating to the candidates for admission to the general category seats which were subject to University reservation rules, a provision for weightage was made. However, in respect of sponsored candidates, inter se merit had to be determined only on the basis of the written test, group discussion and interview. The rationale for this differential treatment was that the candidates who were Non-Resident Indians were normally not expected to have passed the qualifying examination from the Kurukshetra University.

Mr. Patwalia points out that the weightage had to be given by making the addition to the percentage of marks secured by a candidate in the qualifying test. It is undoubtedly so. However, in view of the specific provision relating to the sponsored students, we cannot persuade ourselves to hold that the weightage had to be given to the candidates who were competing against the seats exclusively reserved for the Non-Resident Indians or the Sponsored candidates. A special rule had been made in their case which was to override the general provisions relating to the preparation of merit lists.

There is another aspect of the matter. The students were admitted in November 1996. More than six months have elapsed since then. Firs! Semester is already over. Major part of the second Semester is also over. The examination for the second semester is about to take place. Time has run out for the petitioner. The clock can''t be put back for him.

We cannot lose sight of the facts that no candidate who may have secured lesser marks than the petitioner has been admitted to the course. All persons belonging to the NRI or sponsored category have been treated equally. The action of the University is just and reasonable. The view taken by the University is in strict conformity with the provisions of the Prospectus. Consequently, no interference is called for.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is consequently dismissed.

Petition dismissed.