Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2661 (ALL)

APOORVA SAXENA v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-08-02

DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Shri Anilesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the University. 2. Petitioner, who appeared in Uttar Pradesh State Entrance Examination-2016 (in short referred to as ‘Entrance Examination’), aggrieved by refusal of allotment of seat as per her merit, has filed the instant writ petition for appropriate direction to the respondents to allot a seat to the petitioner in the ongoing process of Counseling in a College of her choice/preference as indicated by her in the list of colleges LOCKED by her in consonance with the merit secured by the petitioner. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has secured 90% marks in the Intermediate Examination and being eligible to appear for various branches of engineering courses, applied and appeared in the aforesaid Entrance Examination on 17.4.2016, with Roll No. 14210597. According to petitioner’s Counsel, in the said examination, she had secured 8235 rank in General Quota and 819 rank amongst the Girls quota. The petitioner then followed the procedure for the Counseling and locked her seat of preference on 24.6.2016 under sub-category FEE Waiver. Subsequently, the petitioner reached Khandelwal College of Management Science & Technology, Bareilly for document verification on 25.6.2016, where she was informed that Income Tax Return of her father will not be considered as Valid Document for considering her candidature under sub-category FEE Waiver. Consequently due to crunch of time, she changed her category from FEE WAIVER to NO. It is submitted that when the result was declared, the petitioner was not allotted in any of the college as per her preference. 4. Being aggrieved by non-allotment of seat, the petitioner made a complaint to the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 5.7.2016, but it remained unattended, compelling the petitioner to knock the door of this Court seeking relief, as aforesaid. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Clause-18 of the Instruction given to the candidates, no Modification, Addition, Deletion or Alteration in the choice are allowed after last date of filling choice whereas Clause-19 deals with choices and enjoins that choices entered by the candidates shall be treated as final and these choices will be used in the order of preference for seat allotment. Clause 9.9 under the Heading ‘Reservation of Seats’ of the Instruction provides that benefits of UPGL sub-category will automatically be given to all the female candidates. This provision makes it abundantly clear that the college will be allotted to the petitioner/girl category as per her rank, which is 819. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid instructions it has been argued that since the sub-category of the petitioner was changed from Fee Waiver to NO, therefore, her admission was required to be done by opposite party No. 2 as per preference filled by her on 24.6.2016. Therefore, change of sub-category from ‘FEE Waiver’ to ‘NO’ was to in no way effect the process of Counseling for petitioner and she was still to be allotted to a college in accordance with her merit and preference of colleges locked by her. The action of the concerned authorities has resulted ouster of petitioner from counselling without any allotment of seat to her. 7. Shri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for University while opposing the writ petition, has submitted that the petitioner from the stage of filling-up the form was initially informed through the Instructions contained in Information Brochure about the requirement/documents at the verification centre in original which also includes the requirement of Income Tax Certificate of her father and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware about the documents to be furnished in support of her claim for ‘FEE Waiver Scheme’ and in the representation given to the Vice-Chancellor of the University she has stated that she applied in the ‘FEE Waiver Scheme’, gave her choice and at the time of document verification but was not having the Income Certificate to be eligible in the said category. It is wrong to say that the authorities have changed the category from ‘FW’ to ‘NO’. As a matter of fact, it is an information at the time of verification that whether the candidate falls under the category or not and, if the candidate is not having the necessary documents at the time of verification, his sub-category would be changed. 8. Elaborating further, it has been urged that the petitioner has locked her option for 18 Colleges under Fee Waiver category but has not opted for any other Institution without Fee waiver though the candidate is entitled to submit as many option, as one likes. 8. Elaborating further, it has been urged that the petitioner has locked her option for 18 Colleges under Fee Waiver category but has not opted for any other Institution without Fee waiver though the candidate is entitled to submit as many option, as one likes. It is wrong to say that the admission process was not fair and transparent. 9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and perusal of record, this Court finds force in the submission advanced by the Counsel for the University that it is the petitioner, who is at the fault at the time of locking her choice under Fee Waiver category knowing fully well that she is not having the required Income Certificate. Rule 18 and 19 of the Instructions to the candidates issued for the U.P. State Entrance Examination (UPSEE-2016) by Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow, says in unambiguous words that after locking of the choice, it cannot be altered/changed or modified. It appears that the petitioner has locked her option only for 18 Colleges under Fee Waiver category and not opted for any other institution without Fee Waiver though the candidate is free to choose as many options, she/he may choose. The petitioner has to blame herself for the fault committed by her and the concerned authorities of the University cannot be put to fault or held responsible. Once the petitioner was aware that she was not eligible under the fee waiver category as per instructions, she should not have locked the fee waiver category. The petitioner has to blame herself for not opting the Institution falling in the category of ‘without fee waiver’. 10. It may be added that where an applicant has shown his incompetence or negligence in filling up application form as per the instructions, then no interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. Moreover, in view of the stand of the University in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, it is not the end of the road for the petitioner. In the said paragraph it has been stated in clear words that if the seats remain vacant after all the counselings, then University will conduct the 5th round of Counseling for the remaining seats in all the Colleges of the State and fresh applications would be invited. The petitioner has chance to fill up her form afresh with her choices. 12. The petitioner has chance to fill up her form afresh with her choices. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. ———————