Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Choudhary, S.N.Mishra and Mukundakam Sharma JJ.
Arijit Dutta
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3588 of 1993 ;
Decided On : MAY 20, 1994
ADMISSION PROCESS - BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING/BACHELOR OF ARCHITECTURE COURSES - IRREGULARITIES AND ILLEGALTIES - CHALLENGE - MAINTAINABILITY - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - ADMISSION POLICY - FORMULATION - COMPLIANCE WITH APEX COURT DIRECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the admission process for Bachelor of Engineering/Bachelor of Architecture courses for the sessions 1992-93 and 1993-94, alleging irregularities, illegalities, and bunglings. They claimed to have obtained high marks in the entrance examination but were not included in the merit list. They also challenged the admission of students in the Bachelor of Architecture course and the admission of students in the Bachelor of Engineering course for the session 1992-93 after the admission process was closed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had not provided specific instances of irregularities and illegalities committed by the respondents. It also noted that the academic year for the sessions 1993-94 was almost over and that interfering with the admission process at this stage would be futile and would cause prejudice to the students who had been admitted in good faith.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had a locus standi to challenge the admission process for the session 1992-93, to which they were not aspirants. 2. Whether the petitioners had provided sufficient material particulars to support their allegations of irregularities and illegalities in the admission process for the session 1993-94. 3. Whether the court should interfere with the admission process at a stage when the academic year was almost over.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the admission process for the session 1992-93, as they were not aspirants for admission in that session. It relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Nandjee Singh v. P.G. Medical Students Association and Ors., which held that an individual dispute could not be converted into a public interest litigation. 2. The court held that the petitioners had not provided sufficient material particulars to support their allegations of irregularities and illegalities in the admission process for the session 1993-94. It noted that the petitioners had not given any specific instances of irregularities or illegalities and that the admission process had been conducted in accordance with the admission policy of the institute. 3. The court held that it would not be just and proper to interfere with the admission process at a stage when the academic year was almost over. It noted that the students who had been admitted had done nothing contrary to law and that interfering with the admission process at this stage would cause prejudice to them.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it had become futile and that no useful purpose would be served by conducting a detailed investigation into the allegations made by the petitioners.
Chy.S.N.Mishra and Mukundakam Sharma JJ.
1. In this writ application the petitioners challenge the process of admission of students in the Bachelor of Engineering/Bachelor of Architecture courses for the sessions 1992-93 and 1993-94 and contend that the same is vitiated by illegalities, irregularities and bunglings.
2. The case of the petitioners is that in response to the admission notice dated 10-1-93 issued by and on behalf of the Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra (shortly B. I. T. Mesra) (a deemed University) inviting applications for admission in the Bachelor of Engineering course for the Sessions 1993-94, the petitioners submitted their applications. Entrance examination for such admission was held en 29-5-1993 and 30-5-1993. The petitioners appeared and to their expectation they should have obtained not less than 75% marks in the said entrance examination. Further case of the petitioners is that in the prospectus it was clearly mentioned that the admission would be made on merit basis and the result of the entrance examination. It was also mentioned in the prospectus that the list of the candidates eligible for interview on the basis of the result of the entrance examination shall be published in the newspaper mentionad therein. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 3 published the merit list dated 19-8-1993 in the newspapers in which the names of the petitioners were not included. Subsequently a second merit list was published by the respondents 3 and 4 in the newspaper and in that also the names of the petitioner did not figure. The petitioners allege in the writ petition that only the first list issued/published on 19-8-1993 was on the basis of merits whereas in the second list issued on 21-9-1993 many such candidates had been included who actually did not compete on merit but were included solely on the basis of other extraneous considerations. Further case of the petitioners is that the respondents, without open advertisement in the newspaper or otherwise, admitted some students in the Bachelor of Architecture course in 1993-94 Sessions inviting students only of their choice in the so-called examination held on 29-5-93 at B. I. T. Mesra. Incidently the said students admitted in Bachelor of Architecure course, had applied for Bachelor of Engineering course for the Sessions 1993-94 but were not selected for admission and, as such, the said admission is also vitiated by irregularities. The petitioners also challenge admission to the Bachelor of Engineering course for the Session 1992-93 on the ground that although admission to the said course was closed in October, 1992, on the basis of the went list published by respondent No. 3, respondent No. 5 to 11 and about 50 other students have been admitted in April/May, 1993 who never competed on merit for the Sessions 1992-93 nor their names appeared in the merit list published by respondents 3 and 4.
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed their counter affidavit wherein they have stated that the petitioners were the candidates for the admission to the Sessions 1993-94 whereas those private respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 5 to 13 were the candidates for the Sessions 1992-93 with which the petitioners had no concern at all. The said respondents categorically denied that the petitioners had done extremely well in the entrance examination. It is also denied that the said petitioners had obtained more than 75% marks in the entrance examination which would be evident from the fact that the petitioners could not get place in the first as well as second merit list published in the National and Local newspaper. It has also been denied by the said respondents that in the second merit list many candidates who did not compete, have been included on the basis of other consideration. They further stated that all the lists published/notified by the Institute for admission are on the basis of merit and marks obtained in the entrance examination only. With regard to the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
