Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARBIND KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Arbind Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. - 39585 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15793 (20 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39585 of 2007

Arbind Kumar

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in Ph.D. (Agriculture Entomology).

Brief background of the case is that Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur conducted Combined Agriculture and Technology Test, herein after referred to as UPCATET-2007 for three institutions, namely, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur for two seats, Narendra Deo University of Agriculture and Technology, for three seats and Sardar Ballabh Bahi Pate University of Agriculture and Technology for two seats. Said entrance test was for total seven seats, and the allocation of seats was to be done in accordance with the merit. Petitioner's subject was Ph.D. (Agriculture) Entomology Code No. 23. Examination was held on 11.06.2007. Petitioner had done his M.Sc. (Ag) from Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur. Petitioner undertook the aforesaid examination and secured first rank. He was asked to appear for counselling on 19.07.2007. Petitioner appeared for counselling. As per clause 7 of the letter, petitioner was asked to submit an affidavit declaring as to after passing Intermediate Examination, when he was not studying in any educational institution, what was he doing. The affidavit was to be verified by Notary. Petitioner submitted affidavit declaring that during the gap between 1988 and 1991, he was preparing and trying for competitive examinations and thereafter he completed his B.Sc. and M. Sc. from 1991 to 1998, and thereafter since 1998 to 2001 he again tried for competitive, and after 2001` he is working as lecturer. On the same day petitioner was informed that he would not be selected for Ph. D. course, because affidavit submitted by him was sworn on 12.08.2005, and it was not prepared recently. Against this action of the University, petitioner represented and when nothing was done, then he has approached this Court.

To this writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been stated that affidavit submitted by petitioner was not in terms of the requirements made by the University vide its letter Annexure- 3 to the writ petition, by which petitioner was called for counselling. As per paragraph 7 of the said letter, petitioner was required to submit an affidavit as to after passing Intermediate Examination, when he was not studying in any educational institution, what was he doing. The affidavit was to be verified by Notary. In the affidavit so submitted by petitioner, facts were stated only up to year 2001 and nothing has been stated as to what petitioner had been doing after 2001, and in this background, it has been contended that petitioner had disqualified himself to be admitted.

To this counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit has been filed and the statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit has been disputed, and it has been contended that each and every fact was duly submitted and there was nothing misleading in the affidavit. Petitioner has further contended that he was ready to furnish recent affidavit, but no time was accorded to him, as they were interested in some other incumbent.

After pleadings have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Ratnesh Nandan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that this was a glaring case of meting arbitrary treatment to a candidate. On the basis of merit, having security first rank, claim of petitioner has been non-suited on technicalities, whereas full particulars as required vide paragraph 7 of the letter for counselling were there in the affidavit and there has been no concealment, as such writ petition is liable to be allowed.

Countering the said submission, Sri Prakash Padia, Advocate, representing the University, has contended that terms and conditions as required by Annexure-3 to the writ petition, have not at all been fulfilled by petitioner, and the affidavit did not give clear cut picture pertaining to petitioner, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that petitioner having completed his M. Sc. (Ag) from Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, petitioner applied for appearing in UPCATET-2007 to be conducted by Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur for admission to Ph.D. in Agriculture Entomology; he secured first rank in the said Test and was asked to appear in counselling, and as per letter issued for counselling, he was required to submit an affidavit, giving therein details, as to after passing Intermediate Examination, when he was not studying in any educational institution, what was he doing. The affidavit was to be verified by Notary. Petitioner had with him an affidavit addressed to Registrar, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, which was sworn in on 12.08.2005, and it was mentioned therein that during the period between 1988 and 1991, petitioner was preparing for competitive examinations and thereafter he completed his B.Sc. and M. Sc. from 1991 to 1998, and thereafter since 1998 to 2001 he again tried for competitive examinations, and after 2001` he is working as Lecturer. Petitioner's claim has been non-suited on the ground that he has submitted an old and stale affidavit. In the letter issued for counselling, nowhere it has been stated that affidavit, which was to be furnished should be recent one, rather it desired certain information. Once petitioner had an affidavit verified by Notary and addressed to Registrar, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, and presented it before the authority, and there being no incorrect statement of fact mentioned therein, then it would too harsh to reject the claim of petitioner, specially when petitioner has secured first rank in the entrance test. The affidavit in question did not contain any incorrect statement of fact, and this fact has not been stated by the University in its counter affidavit as to what other fact they wanted to extract from the said affidavit, which was lacking and missing. It is not the case of the University that any incorrect and wrong information has been furnished by the petitioner and the affidavit which had been filed by him did not give each and every particular. Merely because affidavit was old one, as already mentioned above, it is too harsh to non-suit the candidature of petitioner. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, action of the University cannot be said to be fair and reasonable, and in case recent affidavit was required, they could have given opportunity to furnish recent affidavit. The picture was clear in the affidavit, which was furnished by petitioner, as it has not disclosed by the University as to what more further information was required. Petitioner has been wrongly denied admission.

In view of the discussion made above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondent University is commanded to forthwith admit the petitioner to Ph. D. (Agriculture) Entomology course.

20.09.2007

SRY


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.