Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1702 (ALL)

Sankalp Bhargava v. U. P. Technical University

2004-08-27

N.K.MEHROTRA

body2004
JUDGMENT : N.K. Mehrotra, J. This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1, Registrar, Uttrar Pradesh, Technical University, Lucknow to issue roll number to the Petitioner of first year first semester examination of Bachelor of Architecture of Sessions 2003-2004 and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the Petitioner to appear in the examination of first year first semester examination of 2003-2004 and further for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to declare the result of first year first semester examination of Bachelor of Architecture of Session 2003-2004 and if the Petitioner passes the required number of papers then he may be permitted to pursue the study of second semester of Bachelor of Architecture. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the opposite parties. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that he appeared in Uttar Pradesh State Engineering Admission Test, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as UPSEAT-2002) in the same year in which he had appeared in the final examination of Class-XII examination of the academic session 2001-2002 from C.B.S.E. Board. 4. According to the Information Brochure, the candidates who have passed intermediate of U.P. Board or equivalent examination with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory subject along with one of the subject of Chemistry/Engineering Drawing/Computer Science/Biology were eligible for admission for first year B. Arch. (Bachelor of Architecture). The candidates who were due to appear at the qualifying examination or had appeared but the results were awaited, were also eligible to appear in UPSEAT, 2003. It was provided that the eligibility for admission shall remain forfeited if, the candidate is unable to produce the full results with original mark-sheet of the qualifying examination on the date of counselling. According to the Petitioner, he was declared successful in UPSEAT, 2002 but he was not successful in passing the qualifying examination of Intermediate. He was to appear in the compartmental examination in one of the subjects. He appeared in the counselling and he was given provisional allotment of seat at APEEJAY Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and Planning Greater Noida, U.P. in Branch of Bachelor of Architecture vide letter dated 7.8.2002 (Annexure-1). He was to appear in the compartmental examination in one of the subjects. He appeared in the counselling and he was given provisional allotment of seat at APEEJAY Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and Planning Greater Noida, U.P. in Branch of Bachelor of Architecture vide letter dated 7.8.2002 (Annexure-1). This provisional allotment was given subject to verification of the documents for taking admission and the list of documents was given in this provisional letter of allotment. One of the document as required at the time of admission was proof of passing the qualifying examination. The Petitioner was required to approach the institution latest by 16.8.2002. This is an admitted fact. According to the Petitioner, he deposited the required fee of Rs. 64,500 by Annexure-2. The Petitioner attended the classes. Since the Petitioner was to appear in the compartmental examination of physics paper of qualifying paper, he could not appear in the first semester examination of Bachelor of Architecture and according to the Petitioner he was allowed by the Director of the Institution to appear in the next examination. After clearing the compartmental examination, the Petitioner approached the Director of the opposite party No. 2 i.e., institution for regularisation of his admission in the course of Bachelor of Architecture and the Petitioner was re-admitted in the said course and he deposited fresh fees at the Institution vide receipt dated 31.7.2003 (Annexure-3). After pursuing the prescribed studies, the opposite party No. 2 submitted the examination form of the Petitioner to the opposite party No. 1 in the category of re-admitted student. But the Petitioner was not issued the roll number by the opposite party No. 1. According to the Petitioner, the rules of the opposite party No. 1 provides that if, any candidate is unable to clear four papers out of seven, he can re-appear in the said examination along with the examination of second semester. 5. The opposite party No. 1 has filed the counter-affidavit. The opposite party No. 2 has not filed any counter-affidavit. The case of the opposite party No. 1 is that the Petitioner had obtained 243 marks out of 500 marks in Senior School Certificate Examination, 2003 which is less than 50% prescribed by the Council for Architecture for admission in B. Arch. The opposite party No. 2 has not filed any counter-affidavit. The case of the opposite party No. 1 is that the Petitioner had obtained 243 marks out of 500 marks in Senior School Certificate Examination, 2003 which is less than 50% prescribed by the Council for Architecture for admission in B. Arch. and the true copies of the direction issued by the Council of Architecture and mark-sheet of the Petitioner are Annexure-A-1 and A-2 annexed to the counter-affidavit. Annexure-A-3 is the mark-sheet of the Petitioner of Senior School Certificate Examination, 2002 dated 25.5.2002 in which the Petitioner has been shown as failed in Physics. Annexure-2 is the final mark-sheet dated 23.5.2003 after clearing the compartmental examination in which the total marks come to 240 marks out of 500 marks. It is also alleged by the opposite party No. 1 that the Petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination provisionally with the condition that he shall produce the required proof of passing the qualifying examinations (Intermediate mark-sheet) along with other documents at the time of admission. It is also alleged that from the perusal of the mark-sheet of Examination of 2002-2003, Annexure Nos. A-2 and A3, it is established that the Petitioner is not entitled for admission to Bachelor of Architecture because he could not qualify the Intermediate Examination, 2002. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents on the record, I find that the Petitioner has filed the Information Brochure of Uttar Pradesh State Engineering Admission Test, 2001 and 2003. For any reason whatsoever, he has not filed the Information Brochure of Uttar Pradesh State Engineering Admission Test, 2002 in which he had appeared. It is established from the document on the record that for admission to Bachelor of Architecture, the eligibility prescribed by the Council of Architecture is 50% marks in aggregate in the qualifying examination and these qualifying marks were determined by Regulations, 1983 published in the Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4 dated 26th March, 1983 and 27th August, 1983. These regulations were approved by the Central Government. Further it is also established that till date the Petitioner had not qualified the qualifying examination. It is also established that on the date of admission, the Petitioner was not qualified and he has failed the qualifying examination in one of the subject Physics. These regulations were approved by the Central Government. Further it is also established that till date the Petitioner had not qualified the qualifying examination. It is also established that on the date of admission, the Petitioner was not qualified and he has failed the qualifying examination in one of the subject Physics. It is also established that after declaring the result of compartmental examination, he could not secure 50% marks in the qualifying examination as prescribed by Regulation, 1983. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner in this writ petition. 7. The opposite party No. 2 has accepted the fees of the Petitioner illegally and against the rules. The Petitioner could not be given admission without seeing the documents passing qualifying examination. Deposit of the fee is quite illegal on the part of the opposite party No. 2 who has deposited the fees of a disqualified student. Therefore, at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the opposite party No. 2 is directed to refund the fees of the Petitioner, which he has deposited illegally on the basis of the wrong allotment. The Petitioner has not filed the permission of the Director of the opposite party No. 2 to pursue the studies in the next examination; therefore, the only relief, which can be granted to the Petitioner, is to refund all the fees charged by the opposite party No. 2 against the rules of admission. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed for the relief’s claimed. The opposite party No. 2 is directed to refund the entire fees of the Petitioner within a period of one month from the date the copy of this judgment is produced before the opposite party No. 2.