Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1524 (RAJ)

Kushagar Chamaria v. State of Rajasthan

2016-10-20

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2016
ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This petition has been filed by petitioner Kushagar Chamaria with prayer that respondents be directed to give him admission in B. Arch. Course in the academic session 2016-17 in Ayojan School of Architecture, Jaipur. 2. Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner appeared in the Centralized Admission Test for B.E./B.Tech. (REAP-2016) conducted by the Rajasthan Technical University, Kota. Petitioner secured 115 marks out of 200 and he was given admission in M.B.M. Engineering, Jodhpur. Thereafter, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, organized special round of counselling known as fifth round and issued special round order dated 05.08.2016. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with already allotted M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur, he got his earlier admission cancelled, which was necessary for him to participate in the fifth round counselling and thereafter registered himself to appear in the fifth round counselling as a fresh candidate by depositing requisite fee. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner filled in the online option form for fifth round counselling, which was accepted on the website of the respondent University on 08.08.2016 and payment of fee was also accepted on 08.08.2016. However, when the petitioner wanted to give his option, the online link box to the 'option form' did not open. He therefore could not fill the option form as the same was not opening by the challan number and the token number given to him by the site. He immediately requested the respondent University through email on 10.08.2016 at 5:07 PM to resolve the problem as that day was the last date for filling option form. At 6:43 PM the respondent University on email advised the petitioner to try their website on 'Mozilla' to have access to option form, but even then the effort made by petitioner failed. The respondent University thereafter on the same day at 7:21 PM on email asked the petitioner to send nata (national aptitude test for architecture) roll number. The petitioner at 9:06 PM sent on email the nata mark-sheet informing the nata roll number 2016687746. Even then the petitioner could not succeed in opening the option form. He then requested the respondent University on email on 11.08.2016 at 7:57 AM to extend necessary help stating that form is not opening despite his best efforts being made since 08.08.2016. He wanted to opt for Ayojan School of Architecture. 3. Even then the petitioner could not succeed in opening the option form. He then requested the respondent University on email on 11.08.2016 at 7:57 AM to extend necessary help stating that form is not opening despite his best efforts being made since 08.08.2016. He wanted to opt for Ayojan School of Architecture. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the respondents be directed to accept his option deemed to have been exercised on 10.08.2016 and grant him admission in B. Arch. study course in Ayojan School of Architecture, Jaipur, where one seat is still lying vacant. 4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent invited attention of the court towards judgment of the Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (2013) 3 SCC 385 , and argued that the Supreme Court therein has held the admission to academic courses should start, as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year and the seats remaining vacant should again be duly notified and advertised and all seats should be filled positively by 15th August after which there should be no admission, whatever be the reason or ground and that no student should be admitted after last date under any quota. He however submitted that the respondent University can consider the request of the petitioner for revival of his admission with M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur, which was granted pursuant to fourth round counselling. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that the Supreme Court in Varun Saini, Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 2014 (12) SCALE 184 and Vrinda Pareek Vs. Union of India - (2015) 13 SCC 438 has permitted slight deviation from that schedule and granted admission even after 15th August in special circumstances. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents themselves have not followed the calendar of process of admission fixed by the Supreme Court as they have conducted the fifth round counselling on 06.08.2016, whereas as per the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court, the last round of counselling can be conducted only up to 30.07.2016. The respondents, having deviated from the time scheduled by the Supreme Court, cannot now be permitted to oppose the prayer of the petitioner. 6. The respondents, having deviated from the time scheduled by the Supreme Court, cannot now be permitted to oppose the prayer of the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this court finds that even though it may be a hard case, it is a case where deviation is to be made from the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust, supra, for grant of admission to the petitioner in a new college beyond 15.08.2016, as that would certainly tantamount to breach of the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court. However, in the facts of the case, the respondents are directed to revive admission of the petitioner to M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur, in B. Arch. Course, within one week, where he can resume his studies, on his approaching the respondent University along-with a copy of this order. 7. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. This disposes of stay application.