( 1 ) THE petitioner-appellant, who, it is not in dispute, is entitled to admission in any of the Engineering Colleges of the State on a reserved seat for N. C. C. c candidates, has failed to take the benefit for, according to him, he was not informed that he was required to report on 15-10-1995 for such admission. He has moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and sought a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction declaring the action of the respondent in not giving admission to him and providing seat accordingly as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant applied for entrance examination for admission to the Engineering course and secured the rank of 16413 in the entrance examination. As a holder of N. C. C. c Certificate, however, he qualified for being given a seat, but, according to him, he received no intimation to the said effect. He came, however, to learn that he was denied the seat for his not being present at the lime of interview for granting admission on 15-10-1995 only after his filing the Instant petition in the Court seeking the Courts intervention for the said purpose. He has alleged, when he learnt that candidates obtaining ranks from 224 to 5,500 were being offered seats, he visited the University and was informed that the candidates with N. C. C. b Certificate, who were holding the rank of above 18000 were granted admission in the Engineering College. He, being the holder of N. C. C. c Certificate, has the priority, which, according to him, has been ignored by the respondent.

( 2 ) THE above facts are not disputed in the counter-affidavit. It is, however, stated that the candidates belonging to N. C. C. category and physically handicapped were sent communication letters, followed by telegrams, requiring them to appear on 15-10-1995. Since the petitioner-appellant failed to appear on the said date, other candidates who attended the interview were considered and were granted admission. Thus, all the seats reserved for N. C. C. category have been filled. Since, however, petitioner-appellant also made a request for allotment of a payment seat, he was called for interview on 2-11-1995 and offered a payment seat available on that date. On verification and as stated in the counter-affidavit, however, there is no material to know as to whether any call letter was ever sent to the petitioner-appellant. Telegram, however, was given to him on 12-10-1995. It has transpired the same has not been delivered to him and as per the affidavit and information furnished on behalf of the respondent, the telegraph department has informed that the same could not be served upon the petitioner-appellant for the reason of service error. Learned single Judge, how ever, has taken the view that since intimation was sent by the authorities to the petitioner-appellant because the telegraph department failed to serve the same, the respondent cannot be held responsible. Since facts are not in dispute, it is required to be examined whether non-service of any intimation upon the petitioner-appellant has resumed in denial of any right to him and whether the respondent, for the said lapse, can be held responsible. We could have chosen this case as one to advert to certain questions as to the accountability of the respondent for not securing the service of the intimation issued by it for the appearance of the petitioner-appellant for interview on 15-10-1995, had our attention been not drawn to a learned judgment of a Full Bench of the Madras Court in the case of Vinothkumar R. v. Secretary, Selection Committee, Sabarmathi Hostel, K. M. C. , 1995 (1) Mad LW 351. Madras Court Full Bench decision has resolved a controversy and the conflict which existed between two Division Bench judgments of the Court i. e. , R. Maheswari v. Secretary, Selection Committee, 1995 (1) Mad LW 348 : (AIR 1995 Madras 168) and Anil Latha Gold v. Govt. of Tam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document