IMPORTANT POINT
Every candidate applying for a particular course in any College is expected to go through advertisement thoroughly including the eligibility criteria prescribed for each course and after fulfillment of the required conditions, state the correct particulars in the application form failing which he/she cannot claim any benefit for his/her own wrong

Judgment :-

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1110 of 2009, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order dated 01.07.2009 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3465 of 2008.

3) Brief facts:

(a) Priyadarshini College of Computer Science – Appellant No.1-herein (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant-College”) is a recognized institution and is affiliated with the Uttar Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow and is imparting technical education for various branches including B.Tech (Computer Science), B.Tech (Electronics & Communication), B.Tech (Information & Technology) and B.Tech (Electronics & Instrumentation).

(b) On 21.08.2007, the appellant-College published a notice in the daily Hindi Newspaper “Dainik Jagran” inviting applications against lapsed/vacant seats for the Session 2007-08 for various branches including admission for Second Year (3rd Semester) of Engineering for Diploma Holders/B.Sc. with Maths eligibility with minimum 60% marks.

(c) In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, Manish Kumar -respondent No.1 applied for admission in 3rd Semester for the course of B.Tech (Computer Science) in the appellant-College. At the same time, admission in the First Year (1st Semester) of the aforesaid branches was also going on in which the minimum qualification was 10+2 with 50% marks.

(d) The appellant-College relying on the declaration made by respondent No.1 in the admission form that he is having 60% marks in the qualifying subjects (though actually he secured 56%) admitted him in B.Tech (Computer Science) for the Second Year (3rd Semester) by taking the requisite fee.

(e) On 03.12.2007, when his application was forwarded to the University for 3rd Semester Examinations, it refused to issue admit card to appear in the examination, since he was not having the required percentage of marks i.e. 60%. Subsequently, the appellant-College cancelled the admission of respondent No.1 and refunded the entire fee of Rs.59,715/- deposited by him on the same day.

(f) Aggrieved by the same, in January, 2008, respondent No.1 filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 3465 of 2008 before the High Court praying for a direction to the University to permit him to appear in the examination or to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to him.

(g) Learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 01.07.2009, treating the writ petition as that of a Public Interest Litigation allowed the writ petition in part and held that since respondent No.1-herein does not possess the minimum qualification for appearing in the 3rd Semester of B.Tech (Computer Science) rejected his prayer to appear in the examination but in order to compensate him for the loss suffered directed the appellant-College to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to him within six weeks from the date of the order. The High Court also held that if appellant-herein fails to pay the said amount, respondent No.1 is at liberty to approach the District Magistrate, G.B. Nagar, Noida for realizing the said amount from the respondent-College as arrears of land revenue. It further held that respondent No.3-University shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the appellant-College for granting admission to respondent No.1.

(h) Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-College filed an appeal being Special Appeal No. 1110 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, by order dated 03.08.2009, dismissed the appeal of the appellants.

(i) Being dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred the above appeal by way of special leave.

4) We heard Mr. Aman Vachher, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Satyendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

5) In order to understand the rival claim