Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 78 (JK)

C. A. E. E and Anr. v. Salooni Gupta and Ors.

2013-02-05

HASNAIN MASSODI, M.M.KUMAR

body2013
M. M. Kumar, CJ;— 1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent preferred by the Competent Authority for Entrance Examination, J&K is directed against judgment and order dated 09.07.2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OWP no. 470 of 1998. 2. The writ petitioner- respondent was selected for admission to Ist year Bachelor of Engineering Course commencing from 1997 vide notification No. 7/J/CAEE/BE/97 of 1998 dated 24.05.1998. She was shown at serial no. 23 in the Open Merit category and she had secured 116 marks. She was allotted GCET. However, her name was deleted by a corrigendum issued by the appellant, which directed to read Roll no. 45553 Sakshi instead of Roll no. 455554 Salony Gupta 2 appearing at serial no. 23 in the Annexure A to the notification dated 24.05.1998. The aforesaid corrigendum was challenged on the ground that the writ petitioner- respondent was selected in the Open Merit category and the corrigendum issued by the appellant was unjustified, arbitrary and illegal. 3. On 15.06.1998 the Court noticed the aforesaid factual position. It was indicated that the writ petitioner- respondent was selected in the Open Merit category and she possessed merit as revealed in the notification dated 24.05.1998. According to the aforesaid order the corrigendum was the result of mistake which deprived the writ petitioner- respondent of her selection. The Court also held that her selection reflected in the notification dated 24.05.1998 shall stand. The appellant could not file and counter nor could produce the record before the learned Single Judge. Vide order dated 17.04.2001 the Writ Court directed the Secretary of the appellant-Department to produce the record of the selected candidates notified through notification dated 24.05.1998. The record was still not produced and the Court was left with no other course then to proceed to pass the final order and awarded Rs. 1 Lac as a token of compensation because the writ petitioner- respondent suffered loss. The basic reason for awarding the compensation to the writ petitioner- respondent is that the learned Single Judge has passed order dated 15.06.1998 that selection of the writ petitioner- respondent pursuant to notification dated 24.05.1998 3 was to stand which was made subject to objections from the other side but despite that the writ petitioner- respondent was not admitted. The basic reason for awarding the compensation to the writ petitioner- respondent is that the learned Single Judge has passed order dated 15.06.1998 that selection of the writ petitioner- respondent pursuant to notification dated 24.05.1998 3 was to stand which was made subject to objections from the other side but despite that the writ petitioner- respondent was not admitted. By the time the writ petition finally came up for disposal the whole course for B.E was already over and there was no possibility to force the appellant to grant admission. The award of compensation was the only course left with the Court. 4. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant having violated the order of the Court in refusing to admit the writ petitioner- respondent on the basis of a non-existing corrigendum, the order of the learned Single Judge would not require any interference. We find that the cost of Rs. 1 Lac in the facts and circumstances is not on higher side. Accordingly the appeal is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons aforesaid this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.