Back
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Aanant V Chatturvedi S/o Vikaash Chatturvedi – Appellant
Versus
Amity University Through It`s Authorized Officer – Respondent
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 admissi
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 admi....
Denial of admission on technical grounds, such as non-payment of fees due to circumstances beyond the student's control, may result in great injustice and is deemed improper.
Candidates must strictly adhere to eligibility criteria as outlined in the university's prospectus, and institutions are justified in cancelling admissions if these criteria are not met.
The court affirmed that timely application for admission and compliance with attendance regulations are critical, and failure to meet these does not violate constitutional rights.
The court upheld the cancellation of admission based on the petitioner's failure to meet the eligibility criteria, affirming that procedural fairness was maintained despite the lack of a formal order....
The University was estopped from cancelling the petitioner's admission as the petitioner had suffered detriment by relying on the representation made by the Principal of the College, who was acting a....
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
