High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Manoj Kumar Pal & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 55544 of 2005  RD-AH 6048 (20 March 2006)
Court No. 52
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.55544 of 2005
Manoj Kumar Pal and another
State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for according admission to petitioners in LL.B. Ist year course 2005-06 at Dayanand College of Law, Kanpur.
Brief background of the case is that petitioners intended to pursue LL.B. course and in this respect they undertook entrance examination for the academic session 2005-06 conducted by Chhatrpati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur. Petitioners were declared successful in OBC category and they obtained rank of 206 and 280 respectively. As per advertisement dated 12.07.2005 counselling was to take place on 17.07.2005. Petitioners have contended that they faced the counselling and were allotted Dayanand College of Law, Kanpur. Petitioners were directed to fill up admission form latest by 25.07.2005. Petitioners have contended that on 25.07.2005 each and every pre-requisite formalities were fulfilled after they had obtained admission forms from the institution in question. Thereafter, petitioners have contended that the forms were deposited, but the same were returned by observing that no seat was left. At this juncture petitioners have approached this Court. This Court on 12.08.2005 invited counter affidavit from the respondents.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the institution in question, and it has been contended therein that last date for taking admission was 25.07.2005, but the petitioners did turn up after completing the formalities. Preparation of notarial affidavit and draft on 25.07.2005 itself shows casual approach of petitioners. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners did not turn up nor did they make any application for extension of time. It has been contended that 34 seats were not filled up, and thereafter request was made to the University vide letter dated 17.08.2005. The University, thereafter issued notices for second counselling for general candidates on 30.08,.2005 and OBC and Scheduled Caste candidates on 31.08.2005. It has been contended that petitioners did not turn up even in the second counselling, and as on date, all 320 seats have been filled up, as such relief claimed cannot be accorded.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed, wherein statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit has been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated.
After pleadings aforementioned have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
Sri R.C. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that it is impossible to conceive that petitioners got prepared notarial affidavit and draft and in spite of the same they failed to present themselves for admission and the fact of the matter is that petitioners have been meted with arbitrary treatment, as such admission in all eventuality ought to have been accorded.
Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended with vehemence that petitioners had never turned up and for remaining seats even when second shift of counselling took place, petitioners did not turn up. As on date, no seat is left vacant, petitioners cannot be accorded admission, as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
After respective arguments have been advanced, the undisputed position which emerges is to the effect that petitioners had been selected on merit for being accorded admission to LL.B. course in Dayanand College of law, Kanpur. This is also undisputed that draft and notarial affidavit were prepared on 25.07.2005. Petitioners submit that they visited the institution, whereas on the other hand institution in question has been rebutting the said situation. As allegations and counter allegations are coming forward, in writ jurisdiction this Court cannot decide this fact as to whether petitioners' contention is correct or it is respondents' contention which is correct. However, the fact of the matter is that against unfilled seats advertisement was made for second counselling and undisputedly, petitioners did not turn up to avail of such opportunity. Once the petitioners have failed to avail of the second opportunity, and each and every seat has been filled up, then in this background no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
Consequently, writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.