An ineligible candidate cannot claim a seat in an educational institution, even if the institution failed to properly verify the candidate's eligibility.

ORDER

1. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not allowing the petitioner to download the call letter for general counseling for the 6 years integrated B.Tech programme on the ground of her over age as per the norms of the University as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner for counseling.

2. The petitioner applied for common entrance test for six years integrated B.Tech programme offered by Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies (RGUKT) as per notification dated 18.08.2021. She filed application on payment of requisite fee and she was given application No.266999. Her date of birth is 23.09.2003. Her application was successfully uploaded and online entrance test hall ticket No.2111038235 was generated after scrutiny of her personal data under EWS quota. The petitioner appeared for entrance examination dated 29.09.2021 at Rajampet, Government School, YSR Kadapa District and secured general merit rank of 2492 and category merit order 433 under EWS quota. The petitioner was confident to get a seat in B.Tech as per the rank. In anticipation she did not join in any other college for further study.

3. While so, University published the schedule for attending the counseling on different dates as per website rank. The petitioner tried on 15.11.2021 to download the call letter from the website but to her surprise, she got information that she was over aged as per the norms of the University. She contacted the University by helpline phone but the answer was not satisfactory. Hence the writ petition.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition contending as follows:

(a) While applying for entrance test, the petitioner had read the eligibility criteria and she knew that she was not eligible for admission because, as per clause-VI (1) (c) of the RGUKT CET - 21 notification, one of the eligibility criteria for writing RGUKT CET - 21 is that candidate should not have completed 18 years of age as on 31.12.2021. Even as per petitioner's own admission, she would be aged 18 years 3 months and 10 days by 31.12.2021. Hence, she was not eligible to write the entrance examination. Even then, she has applied for common entrance test which was not the fault of the respondent University. Mere granting the hall ticket, allowing the petitioner to write the common entrance test will not confer her any right of admission in the respondent University. The respondent University has sent call letters to those candidates who are eligible for admission. The University did not send call letter to the petitioner because she is not eligible for admission in view of Clause VI (1) (c) of the detailed Notification - 2021. The University has informed to the petitioner that she is not eligible for admission when she contacted through helpline phone number. As there were no merits in the writ petition the same may be dismissed.

5. It should be noted that as per order dated 25.11.2021 this Court directed the respondent authorities to reserve one seta in EWS quota in six years integrated B.Tech course until further orders.

6. Heard Sri Janardhana Reddy Ponaka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pithani Chandrashekar Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for Education representing respondent Nos. 1 and 4.

7. Both learned counsel reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. While learned counsel for petitioner Sri Janardhana Reddy Ponaka argued that since respondent University has accepted the application of the petitioner to attend entrance test, allotted hall ticket number and permitted her to write the common entrance test and issued rank, it will be unjust on its part to disallow the petitioner from attending the counseling for allotment of the seat on the sole ground that the petitioner was over aged. Learned counsel woul