The main legal point established is that the cancellation of provisional admission was justified due to the petitioner's failure to meet the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the provisional admission letter.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--This petition seeks to challenge the impugned communication dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure P-11), whereby the provisional admission of the petitioner in BBA LL.B. (Hons.) Programme has been cancelled by the respondent-University.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire approach of the respondent-University is erroneous inasmuch as without verification of the required document, the entire fee was directed to be deposited. She further submits that it was incumbent upon the respondent-University to have first verified the eligibility requirement etc., then only they should have asked the concerned candidate to deposit the fees, however, in the instant case the provisional admission was granted in July, 2016 and after completion of the entire semester, the admission came to be cancelled on 14.10.2016. She, therefore, submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner also deserves for the refund of the entire semester fees with security deposit etc.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner however, fairly submits that the petitioner, after his admission was cancelled from the respondent-University, took admission in other institution and has graduated in law and currently he is practising as an Advocate. She, however, submits that under the facts of present case the petitioner still deserves for refund of the fees and security deposit etc.

4. Having perused the impugned order, which specifically states that the admission of the petitioner which was provisional in nature was subject to fulfilment of the other requirement such as possessing of minimum educational qualification etc.

5. A perusal of the provisional admission letter (Annexure P-9) clearly indicates that the eligibility to take admission against the concerned course was to have the qualification of 10+2 (minimum 55 per cent) with pass in all subjects of Class 12th from recognised Board. It further stipulates that the aggregate percentage will be calculated on the basis of marks scored in English and three academic subjects excluding Physical Education, Fine Arts, Performing Arts, or any other Vocational/Non-written subjects. Admittedly, the petitioner does not meet the requisite qualification as stipulated in provisional admission letter.

6. No doubt, the petitioner possess 66 per cent marks in 10+2, however, the same is with inclusion of Physical Education, Fine Arts, Performing Arts, etc, however, the requirement is of obtaining 55 per cent marks excluding Physical Education, Fine Arts, Performing Arts, etc. It is thus seen that on the date of provisional admission, the petitioner was not fulfilling the basic eligibility criteria for his admission in the concerned course according to the scheme of the admission applicable to the University.

7. It is thus seen that this court is not inclined to set aside the impugned communication dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure P-11) as the same has been passed strictly in accordance with the applicable admission scheme.

8. So far as submission with respect to the fact that the respondent-University has acted illegally with respect to accepting the entire semester fees in advance is concerned, all those issues cannot be gone into in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. If the petitioner feels that the entire fees was not required to have been deposited at the admission stage or otherwise all those issues can be agitated before appropriate forum in accordance with law. The same would require adducing of sufficient evidence and its appreciation.

10. Leaving all questions open for the petitioner to be agitated before appropriate forum, the instant petition stands disposed of.